SCVG & KLD

Case [2017] FamCAFC 95

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SCVG & KLD AND ANOR [2017] FamCAFC 95

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CHILD SUPPORT – Application for leave to appeal against decision of a Federal Circuit Court judge affirming a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal to amend the appellant’s adjusted taxable income for the purposes of a child support assessment – Proposed appeal discloses no error of law – The appellant had himself provided the evidence on which the Tribunal’s decision was based and the decision was not illogical, irrational or unreasonable – Procedural fairness does not extend to giving notice of a conclusion open on the known material – The Tribunal does not have a general obligation to make investigations on behalf of a party –Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Where indemnity costs were awarded for 50 per cent of the respondent’s costs in parenting proceedings – An appellate court will not interfere with such an order unless the result is plainly unjust or the primary judge’s discretion was exercised on wrong principles – Failure to comply with rule 19.08(3) did not invalidate the costs order – No error established – Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Applications to adduce further evidence and to extend time in which to appeal – No merit in the applications – Applications all dismissed save for one that was discontinued after the hearing of the appeal.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Appellant wholly unsuccessful – Appellant to pay the first and second respondent’s costs to be assessed, if not agreed.
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) s 98E
Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1989 (Cth) Part VIIA, ss 110B, 107A(1)
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 117, 117(2A)
Tribunals Amalgamation Act 2015 (Cth)
Browne v Green (2002) FLC 93-115
Carrigan & Fredericks (SSAT) Appeal [2011] FMCAfam 544
Child Support Registrar & Crabbe And Anor [2014] FamCAFC 10
COG15 & Child Support Registrar & COG and Anor [2016] FamCAFC 272
Colgate-Palmolive v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225
Harris & Harris (1991) FLC 92-254
In the marriage of I and I (No 2) (1995) FLC 92-625
Madin & Palis (Costs) [2016] FamCAFC 25
Medlow & Medlow (2016) FLC 93-692
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZGUR (2011) 241 CLR 594
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Al-Miahi (2001) 65 ALD 141
P v Child Support Registrar (2014) 225 FCR 378
Rawson Finances Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (2013) 296 ALR 307
Rutherford & Rutherford (1991) FLC 92-255
SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2006) 228 CLR 152
APPELLANT: Mr SCVG
FIRST RESPONDENT: Ms KLD
SECOND RESPONDENT: Child Support Registrar
FILE NUMBER: SYC 2044 of 2013
SYC 4380 of 2008
APPEAL NUMBER: EA 75 of 2015
EA 156 of 2015
EA 51 of 2016
DATE…

Continue reading SCVG & KLD

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
SCVG & KLD [2017] FamCAFC 95
Case
[2017] FamCAFC 95
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

SCVG & KLD is an appeal against several decisions related to family law matters, including child support assessment, costs, and further evidence. The appeal was dismissed by the court, with the application for leave to appeal and other applications also dismissed. The appellant, who had provided evidence for the child support assessment, sought to appeal against the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, affirmed by a Federal Circuit Court judge. The legal issues centred on whether the proposed appeal disclosed an error of law, whether procedural fairness was upheld, and whether the Tribunal had an obligation to investigate on behalf of the party. The court found that the appellant had provided the evidence on which the Tribunal's decision was based, and that the decision was not illogical, irrational or unreasonable. The court also found that procedural fairness did not extend to giving notice of a conclusion open on the known material, and that the Tribunal did not have a general obligation to make investigations on behalf of a party.

The appeal also addressed costs awarded in the parenting proceedings. The court found that an appellate court will not interfere with an order for indemnity costs unless the result is plainly unjust or the primary judge's discretion was exercised on wrong principles. The court found that the failure to comply with rule 19.08(3) did not invalidate the costs order, and no error was established. The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant also sought to adduce further evidence and extend the time in which to appeal, but the court found no merit in the applications. All applications were dismissed, save for one that was discontinued after the hearing of the appeal.

Finally, the appellant was wholly unsuccessful and was ordered to pay the first and second respondent's costs to be assessed, if not agreed. The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The application for leave to appeal in EA 75 of 2015 is dismissed.

2.

The Applications in an Appeal filed on 18 August 2015, 22 February 2016, 7 April 2016, 14 April 2016 and 23 May 2016 are dismissed.

3.

Appeal EA 156 of 2015 is dismissed.

4.

The applicant/appellant pay the first and second respondent’s costs of and incidental to the said applications and appeal to be assessed, if not agreed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.