Song and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

[2020] AATA 3651

Song and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2020] AATA 3651 (1 July 2020)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2020/BC019014

APPLICANT:  Mr Song

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

TRIBUNAL:Member S Letch

DECISION DATE:  1 July 2020

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – dismissal of application for review – non-agency payment – no prospect of success – application for review dismissed

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been removed from this decision and replaced with generic information so as not to identify involved individuals as required by subsections 16(2AB)-16(2AC) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

DISMISSAL OF APPLICATION FOR REVIEW:

1. This matter concerns an application by Mr Song against a decision by the Child Support Agency (CSA) dated 9 May 2020 refusing to grant him an extension of time to object to an earlier decision dated 4 March 2020 which refused to reduce his child support liability by applying a credit for a “non-agency payment” (NAP) made on 30 June 2015.

2. Following a preliminary proceeding before the Tribunal, the Tribunal wrote to Mr Song on 8 June 2020 in the following terms:

   As discussed at your Early Case Assessment Conference, the Tribunal is considering whether to dismiss your application under section 42B(1)(a) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 on the basis that the application has no reasonable prospect of success.

   You have 21 days from the date of this letter to give us any evidence or written submission that you wish to have considered before that decision is considered.

3. The Tribunal did not receive a response.

4. Putting to one side the other usual factors in deciding whether an extension to object should be granted, there is no purpose to be served in granting an extension if an application on the substantive issue ultimately has no prospects for success.

5. The materials reveal that Mr Song says that in June 2015, [Child 1] was living with him. Mr Song was looking after [Ms A]’s home as she was in [Country 1]. He got a call as [Child 1] was in hospital in a neck brace. The doctor advised that [Child 1] would need good support for his back. He took the doctor’s advice and bought [Child 1] a better mattress. He seeks to have that credited as a NAP.

6. Mr Song says he has not spoken to [Ms A] for 16 years so there was no mutual intent that the bed was purchased in lieu of child support. He said he does not want to pay [Ms A] anything more.

7. There is no evidence that the purchase of the bed was an essential medical need. In any event, [Child 1] turned 18 [in] July 2015 (just a few days after the bed was purchased) so crediting what is called a “prescribed non-agency payment” (PNAP) would not assist Mr Song in reducing or expunging the debt of $2071.56 he still owes as PNAPs cannot be credited after the case finishes.

8. Accordingly, Mr Song cannot secure the outcome he seeks. His application on the substantive issue has no prospects for success. The Tribunal dismisses the application for review pursuant to subsection 42B(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act).