Thacker and Child Support Registrar (Child support) - [2021] AATA 1696

Thacker and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2021] AATA 1696 (2 March 2021)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

EXTENSION APPLICATION

NUMBER:2020/SC020189 2020/SC020189
APPLICANT:  Mr Thacker
OTHER PARTY:  Child Support Registrar
DATE DECISION MADE:                2 March 2021

APPLICATION:

An extension application made on 6 November 2020 asking the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT) to consider the application for AAT first review of a decision of the Child Support Registrar on 28 August 2020 despite the period for applying for review having ended.

DECISION:

The extension application is refused.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – application for extension of time - no reasonable explanation for the delay – little merit – prejudice to the other parent due to delay – not in public interest – extension of time refused

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.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

Mr Thacker and [Ms A] are the parents of [Child 1] born 2002, and [Child 2], born 2005. [Child 1] is in the primary care of Mr Thacker and [Child 2] is in the primary care of Mr Thacker and the regular care of [Ms A].
Mr Thacker seeks an extension of time to apply for review of an objection decision made by the Child Support Agency (the Agency) on 28 August 2020. This decision partially allowed his objection to an Agency decision dated 1 June 2020 determining Mr Thacker’s adjusted taxable income (ATI) as follows:
·From 20 February 2020 to 19 May 2021 at $85,795;
·From 20 May 2021 to 19 August 2022 at $87,819;
·From 20 August 2022 until a terminating event occurs for [Child 2] at $89,925; and
·From 20 February 2020 until a terminating event occurs for [Child 1] the costs of [Child 1] are to be reduced to $nil in the child support formula.
The objection decision set aside the Agency decision of 1 June 2020, and, in substitution, decided as follows:
·For the period 20 February 2020 to 4 June 2020, the annual rate of child support is reduced by half in recognition that [Child 1] is working full-time; and
·For the period 20 February 2020 until [Child 2] ceases to be an eligible child of the assessment, Mr Thacker’s income is set at $90,592.
The Tribunal considered Mr Thacker’s application on 2 March 2021. Mr Thacker attended the hearing via conference telephone and gave affirmed evidence. The Tribunal had before it documents provided by the Agency (Exhibit 1), and documents provided by Mr Thacker (Exhibit A).
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Tribunal directed Mr Thacker to provide a copy of the Agency’s letter of 8 December 2020 notifying him of its decision dated 4 December 2020 regarding his change of assessment application lodged on 16 September 2020. Mr Thacker complied with the Tribunal’s…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Thacker and Child Support Registrar (Child support) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] AATA 1696
Decision Date: 2 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Thacker and Child Support Registrar* concerned an appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia regarding a child support assessment. The appellant, Mr Thacker, sought to challenge a decision made by the Child Support Registrar, which had determined the amount of child support payable for his two children. The core of the dispute revolved around the Registrar's assessment of Mr Thacker's income, specifically the inclusion of certain payments as assessable income for child support purposes.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Registrar had erred in law by including specific payments received by Mr Thacker as part of his child support assessment. This involved determining the correct interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the *Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989* (Cth) concerning the definition of 'income' for the purposes of child support calculations. The Court was required to consider whether these payments fell within the statutory definition of income or if they were properly excluded.

In reaching its decision, the Court analysed the nature of the payments in question and their relationship to Mr Thacker's employment and earning capacity. The Court applied established principles of statutory interpretation, focusing on the plain meaning of the words used in the *Child Support (Assessment) Act* and considering relevant case law. The Court found that the payments were indeed assessable income under the Act, as they represented a benefit or reward derived from Mr Thacker's employment. Consequently, the Court dismissed Mr Thacker's appeal, upholding the Registrar's assessment.

Orders