CHILD SUPPORT – Appeal from the Social Security Appeals Tribunal – whether any question of law arose in the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal – whether there was evidence that the appellant received a benefit from the payment of the appellant’s credit card expenses by a company 50% owned by the appellant – whether the Social Security Appeals Tribunal erred in ignoring or misconstruing the evidence of the appellant as to the payment of the credit card expenses – whether the Social Security Appeals Tribunal erred by failing to provide the appellant with procedural fairness.
Mr Nicholas Gouliaditis (Australian Government Solicitor)
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Shearer & Benson & Anor (SSAT Appeal) is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY
SYC 1594 of 2011
MR SHEARER
Appellant
And
MS BENSON
First Respondent
CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
This is an appeal from a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (“SSAT”) dated 4 February 2011.
The appellant is the parent liable to pay child support to the first respondent for the child, D, born [in] 1999.
The appellant has another appeal in this Court from a decision of the SSAT of the same date in respect of his liability to pay child support to Ms Trotter, the first respondent in Shearer & Trotter & Anor (SSAT Appeal)[2011] FMCAfam 622, in respect of their child L, born [in] 1994. The SSAT heard both matters together and the appellant’s evidence in one was taken to be evidence in the other.
Both appeals to this Court raise identical issues and the evidence and submissions filed on behalf of the appellant in both proceedings are identical in all material respects, as are those of the second respondent. For those…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Shearer & Benson (SSAT Appeal)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Shearer & Benson (SSAT Appeal) [2011] FMCAfam 623
Case
[2011] FMCAfam 623
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Federal Magistrates Court considered an appeal from a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) regarding the child support assessment of Mr. Shearer. The primary issue was whether the SSAT erred in including the annualised credit card payments made by a company, 50% owned by the appellant, as part of his taxable income for child support purposes. The appellant argued that the SSAT misconstrued his evidence regarding the credit card payments and failed to provide procedural fairness by not foreshadowing its findings. The court found that the SSAT's decision was based on the evidence presented and that the appellant had the opportunity to provide further information and explanations. The SSAT correctly noted that it was not required to undertake a major audit or investigation but needed to be reasonably satisfied on the balance of probabilities regarding the parties' income, property, and financial resources. The SSAT's findings were open to it on the evidence and material before it, and the appellant's failure to provide sufficient evidence did not equate to a denial of procedural fairness. The court dismissed the appeal with costs, affirming the SSAT's decision.