Todd and Child Support Registrar (Child support) - [2017] AATA 273

Todd and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2017] AATA 273 (2 March 2017)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2017/0544
Re:Andrew Todd
APPLICANT

AndChild Support Registrar
RESPONDENT

Decision
Tribunal:Member D K Grigg
Date:2 March 2017
Place:Brisbane

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
.........................[Sgd]...............................................
Member D K Grigg
Catchwords
CHILD SUPPORT – Departure Prohibition Order in force -– non-compliance with payment obligations - Departure Authorisation Certificate refused - decision under review affirmed
Legislation
Child Support (Registration and Collection Act) 1988 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Cases
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 24 ALR 577
Hneidi and Others v Minister For Immigration And Citizenship (2010) 265 ALR 292
Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
Whittaker v Child Support Registrar [2010] FCA 43
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Singh v Minister for Immigration ad Citizenship (2012) 199 FCR 404
O’Neill and Child Support Registrar [2010] AATA 545
Askew v Child Support Registrar [2014] AATA 354
Wetzell and Child Support Registrar [2015] AATA 607
Secondary Materials
Child Support Guide – Version 4.22 – Released 6 February 2017
REASONS FOR DECISION
Member D K Grigg
2 March 2017
INTRODUCTION

Mr Todd owes $128,929.18 in respect of registered maintenance liabilities under section 30 and section 67 of the Child Support (Registration and Collection Act) 1988 (“the Act”).[1] The outstanding sum includes penalties of $30,876.37 incurred due to Mr Todd’s non-compliance with his payment obligations.[2]
[1] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T17, page 83, Certificate under s 116(2) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection
Act) 1988 dated 7 February 2017.
[2] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T16, pages 76-82, Transaction statement – 06.01.2003 to 03.02.2017; T17, page 83,
Certificate under s 116(2) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection Act) 1988 dated 7 February 2017.
Pursuant to section 72D of the Act the Child Support Registrar issued a departure prohibition order (“DPO”) on 20 April 2011 because Mr Todd had:[3]
(a)a child support liability;
(b)not made satisfactory arrangements to discharge the entire liability; and
(c)persistently and without reasonable grounds failed to pay child support debts.
[3] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T8, pages 47-48, Letter – issue of Departure Prohibition Order dated 20 April 2011; T9,
page 49, Departure Prohibition Order dated 20 April 2011.
The DPO is still in force.
On 24 January 2017 Mr Todd applied for a Departure Authorisation Certificate (“DAC”) pursuant to section 72K of the Act requesting permission to travel to Papua New Guinea between 31 January 2017 and 3 March 2017, to source employment contracts in the gold mining industry.[4] Mr Todd is not currently employed.[5] Mr Todd’s application for a DAC was refused.[6]
[4] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T15, page 74, Delegate Refusal of DAC request dated 27 January 2017.
[5]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T14, pages 68-73, Submission regarding Departure Authorization Certificate request dated 24 January 2017.
[6] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T15, page 74, Delegate Refusal of DAC request dated…

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 Todd 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: [2017] AATA 273
Decision Date: 2 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Todd against a decision of the Child Support Registrar to refuse him a Departure Authorisation Certificate. The Registrar's decision was made in circumstances where a Departure Prohibition Order was in force against Mr Todd due to his non-compliance with child support payment obligations.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Mr Todd met the criteria set out in subsection 72L(3)(a) of the relevant legislation. This subsection likely outlines the conditions under which a Departure Authorisation Certificate may be granted, particularly when a Departure Prohibition Order is active.

The court found that Mr Todd did not satisfy the criteria stipulated in subsection 72L(3)(a). Consequently, the court affirmed the decision of the Child Support Registrar to refuse the Departure Authorisation Certificate. Mr Todd's appeal was therefore dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

Mr Todd does not meet the criteria in subsection 72L(3)(a).CONCLUSION Mr Todd’s appeal fails. The decision under review is affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.