Thomas & Harry (SSAT Appeal) - [2010] FMCAfam 310

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

THOMAS & HARRY (SSAT APPEAL)

[2010] FMCAfam 310

CHILD SUPPORT – Appeal from decision of SSAT – challenge to the findings made about income of the applicant.

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989
Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988

LDME & JMA (SSAT Appeal) [2007] FMCAfam712

Tasman & Tisdall [2008] FMCAfam 126
S and D [2005] FMCAfam 446

Applicant:

MR THOMAS

Respondent:

MS HARRY

File Number:

CSC 1089 of 2007

Judgment of:

Slack FM

Hearing date:

23 March 2010

Date of Last Submission:

23 March 2010

Delivered at:

Brisbane

Delivered on:

7 May 2010

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared on his own behalf.

The Respondent appeared by telephone on her own behalf.

ORDERS

That the Notice of Appeal (Child Support) – Appeal from the Decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal filed on 14 October 2009 and the Amended Notice of Appeal (Child Support) – Appeal from the Decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal filed on 22 March 2010 be dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Thomas & Harry (SSAT Appeal) is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
BRISBANE

CSC 1089 of 2007

MR THOMAS

Applicant

And

MS HARRY

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an appeal from the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (hereafter “the SSAT”) dated 24 December 2008.
The applicant (representing himself) argues three grounds of appeal:
1.     Assessment by CSA and decision made by SSAT have been made on speculation that I have the financial resources available to pay.
2.     The respondent has failed to disclose bank statements of her income and her spouse of the whole household income of Mr E.
3.     Documents related to the appellant will determine change of income.
The respondent (representing herself) seeks that the appeal be dismissed.

The decision of the SSAT

The SSAT affirmed the decision under review and the appeal was not successful.
The decision under review was a decision of a Child Support Agency objections officer on 12 August 2008 to disallow an objection by
Mr Thomas to a decision of a senior case officer dated 12 May 2008 which:
1. For the period 12 March 2008 to 30 June 2008 set

Mr Thomas child support income amount at $113,763 and the exempted income amount at $15,378.
2. For the period 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 set Mr Thomas adjusted taxable income at $113,763.

Relevant background facts

The applicant and respondent are the parents of T born [in] 2006.
The parties had a relationship from February 2006 until September 2007.
Child support assessments were issued requiring the applicant to pay the respondent:
The minimum annual rate of $333 for the period 26 September 2007 to 30 June 2008 based on his advised 2006/2007 taxable income of nil and Ms Harry’s 2006/2007 taxable income plus any supplementary amounts of nil; and the fixed annual rate of $1,102 for the period 1 July…

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.

Continue reading Thomas & Harry (SSAT Appeal)

Details

AGLC: Thomas & Harry (SSAT Appeal) [2010] FMCAfam 310
Case: [2010] FMCAfam 310
Decision Date: 7 May 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Thomas appealed to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) against a decision made by the Australian Government Department of Human Services (the Respondent) regarding child support payments. Harry intervened in the appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and the intervener’s application. Thomas and Harry appealed to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The appeal concerned the interpretation of the word "income" for the purposes of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) and the Social Security (Child Support) (Administration) Regulations 1994 (Cth). The parties disagreed as to whether income included passive income, such as dividends from shares. The court considered whether the Tribunal had correctly interpreted the definition of income and whether it had applied the correct legal principles to the facts of the case.

The court held that the Tribunal had correctly interpreted the definition of income and applied the correct legal principles to the facts of the case. The court found that income included passive income such as dividends from shares. The court held that the Tribunal had not erred in its decision and dismissed the appeal. The intervener's application was also dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the Notice of Appeal (Child Support) – Appeal from the Decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal filed on 14 October 2009 and the Amended Notice of Appeal (Child Support) – Appeal from the Decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal filed on 22 March 2010 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.