Terim and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

This matter concerned an application by the applicant, Mr Terim, to revoke a Departure Prohibition Order (DPO) issued by the Child Support Registrar. The dispute centred on whether the applicant's outstanding child support debt was wholly discharged or irrecoverable, or if satisfactory arrangements were in place for its discharge. The decision was made by A Poljak SM.

The court was required to determine three key issues: firstly, whether the applicant still had a child support liability under the Act; secondly, whether satisfactory arrangements had been made for this liability to be wholly discharged; and thirdly, whether the liability was completely irrecoverable. The court also considered its discretion under section 72I(3) of the Act to revoke or vary a DPO if it considered it desirable.

In its reasoning, the court found that the applicant did indeed have an outstanding child support liability, comprising a debt of $14,517.65 and penalties of $1,401.62, which remained unpaid. It was also determined that no satisfactory payment arrangement was in place for the debt's discharge, despite the applicant's willingness to enter into one at the hearing, as no such agreement had been finalised. Furthermore, the court concluded that the debt was not completely irrecoverable, as there remained a reasonable prospect of recovery. Applying a common-sense approach to assessing satisfactory arrangements, the court noted the applicant's limited voluntary payments since April 2016 and the absence of any other payments since August 2017.

Consequently, the court affirmed the decision under review, finding no basis for the revocation of the DPO. The court was not satisfied that the applicant's circumstances warranted revocation, noting the lack of voluntary contributions and a satisfactory payment plan. The DPO was deemed necessary to incentivise the applicant to meet his child support obligations.