FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| STRONG & STRONG & ANOR | [2016] FCCA 3009 |
| Catchwords: CHILD SUPPORT – Interlocutory application for a stay of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) – stay not granted. |
| Legislation: Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, ss.44A, 44AAA Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, p.6A Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988, s.111C |
| Cases cited: Lawson & Lynch & Anor [2016] FCCA 1258 |
| Applicant: | MR STRONG |
| First Respondent: | MS STRONG |
| Second Respondent: | CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR |
| File Number: | BRG 699 of 2016 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Cassidy |
| Hearing date: | 1 November 2016 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 1 November 2016 |
| Delivered at: | Brisbane |
| Delivered on: | 23 November 2016 |
REPRESENTATION
| The Applicant appeared in person |
| There was no appearance by or on behalf of the First Respondent | ||
| Solicitors for the Second Respondent: | Mr C Bishop of Department of Human Services | |
ORDERS
That the interlocutory application for a stay of the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal dated 21 June 2016 be dismissed.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Strong & Strong &Anor is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE |
BRG 699 of 2016
| MR STONG |
Applicant
And
| MS STRONG |
First Respondent
| CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
An Amended Notice of Appeal filed on 11 October 2016 seeks to appeal a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) dated 21 June 2016.
On 27 September 2016 the applicant made an oral application for a stay of the AAT decision pending determination of his appeal. The Amended Notice of Appeal seeks that this order be made under s.111C of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (‘the Collection Act’).
The Child Support Registrar (‘the Registrar’) submits that in proceedings pursuant to s.44AAA of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (‘the AAT Act’) the Federal Circuit Court of Australia does not have jurisdiction to make an order under s.111C of the Collection Act. The Registrar argues that the stay power is enlivened under s.44A of the AAT Act.
Background
The applicant and the first respondent are parents of two young children; Z who was born on (omitted) 2004 and is presently 12 years old and X who was born on (omitted) 2005 and is presently 11 years old.
A child support assessment was registered on 19 January 2011. On 16 October 2015 the first respondent mother applied to the Registrar for a departure of the administrative assessment under Part 6A of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (‘the Assessment Act’).
On 9 December 2016 a senior case officer considered the mother’s application and found two grounds of departure established on the basis of the applicant’s income, property, financial resources and earning capacity. The senior officer decided to set the adjusted taxable income at $136,641 for the period from 1 February 2016 to 31 October 2017 (‘the departure decision’).
On…
Continue reading Strong and Strong and Anor
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Strong and Strong and Anor [2016] FCCA 3009
- Case
- [2016] FCCA 3009
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before Judge Cassidy was whether the applicants had established sufficient grounds to warrant an interlocutory stay of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's decision. This required the court to consider the relevant legal tests for granting such an extraordinary remedy.
Judge Cassidy dismissed the application for a stay. While the specific reasoning is not elaborated in the provided text, the outcome indicates that the applicants failed to satisfy the necessary legal threshold for granting a stay of the Tribunal's decision. The court's decision implies that the applicants did not demonstrate a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their substantive appeal, nor that they would suffer irreparable harm if the stay were not granted, or that the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay.
The court ordered that the interlocutory application for a stay of the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal dated 21 June 2016 be dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
That the interlocutory application for a stay of the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal dated 21 June 2016 be dismissed.
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.