Strong and Strong and Anor

Case [2016] FCCA 3009


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
Lloyd & Tasker & Anor [2016] FCCA 297

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

  1. 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

  1. 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.

  2. 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’).

  3. 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

  1. 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.

  2. 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’).

  3. 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’).

  4. On…

Continue reading Strong and Strong and Anor

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Strong and Strong and Anor [2016] FCCA 3009
Case
[2016] FCCA 3009
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Strong and Strong and Anor*, the applicants sought a stay of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 21 June 2016. The specific nature of the dispute before the Tribunal and the identities of the respondents beyond the applicants are not detailed in the provided text. The application for a stay was heard by Judge Cassidy.

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.