Spinks & Spinks

In *Spinks & Spinks*, the applicant, Mr. Spinks, sought to vary his child support liability under a child support agreement. The dispute arose after Mr. Spinks voluntarily ceased his employment as a solicitor to commence operating a taxi business, which resulted in a significantly reduced income. The matter came before Chisholm J in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Magistrate had erred in having regard to Mr. Spinks' earning capacity, specifically his potential to earn as a solicitor, when assessing his child support liability, despite his voluntary decision to pursue a less profitable venture. This question engaged the interpretation of section 117 of the *Child Support Assessment Act 1989* (Cth), which deals with the assessment of a liable parent's child support where their actual income is less than their earning capacity.

Chisholm J reasoned that the Magistrate was entitled to consider Mr. Spinks' earning capacity, even though he had voluntarily reduced his income. The court affirmed that section 117 of the Act permits an assessment based on earning capacity where a parent's actual income is less than what they could reasonably be expected to earn. The decision underscored that a voluntary reduction in income, particularly to pursue a less profitable business, does not automatically absolve a parent from their child support obligations based on their demonstrable earning capacity. The court found no error in the Magistrate's approach.