Timper and Suttor

In the matter of *Timper and Suttor*, heard by Watts J, the dispute concerned child support obligations. The father, Mr Suttor, was the liable parent, and the mother, Ms Timper, was the carer entitled to child support. The court was asked to make orders regarding the assessment and payment of child support for two children, R and B.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it was just and equitable to make orders deviating from the standard administrative assessment of child support, specifically by ordering a lump sum payment to extinguish the father's liability. This involved considering the provisions of section 117(2)(c) and section 123A of the *Child Support (Assessment) Act*.

Watts J found that a ground under s 117(2)(c) of the *Family Law Act* existed, and that it was just and equitable and otherwise proper to make the orders sought. The court was satisfied, pursuant to s 123A(1)(b) of the *Child Support (Assessment) Act*, that it was just and equitable in relation to the children, the carer, and the liable parent, and otherwise proper, to make an order under s 123A. The court also had regard to the matters set out in s 123A(4), (5), (6) and (7) of the *Child Support (Assessment) Act*.

The court ordered that the father be assessed to pay child support at an annual rate of $15,000 per annum per child for R and B from 1 November 2010 until each child's 18th birthday. This liability was to be extinguished by a lump sum payment of $76,250, to be paid in instalments by 31 January 2011. The lump sum payment was to be credited against 100% of the amounts payable under the child support liability. All other applications were dismissed, and the father was ordered to pay the mother $660 for costs.