Torning v Child Support Registrar - [2004] FCA 631

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Torning v Child Support Registrar [2004] FCA 631
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Notice of Motion seeking dismissal of an Amended Application under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) to restrain the Child Support Registrar from collecting amounts due and payable under statutory child support assessment scheme - Federal Court should exercise jurisdiction to review child support matters only in exceptional circumstances - statutory provision for comprehensive review rights at an administrative and judicial level - Constitutional validity of child support assessment scheme - Scheme not unconstitutional - Scheme not imposing a tax - Child Support Registrar not exercising judicial power - discretionary nature of relief sought - Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth) - Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) - Notice of Motion granted.
Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth)
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth)
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B
Brock v Deputy Child Support Registrar (1995) 57 FCR 538 discussed
Swan Portland Cement Ltd v Comptroller General of Customs (1989) 90 ALR 280 cited
DuPont (Australia) v Comptroller General of Customs (1993) 30 ALD 829 cited
Yarmirr v Australian Telecommunications Corporation (1990) 96 ALR 739 cited
Whittaker v Child Support Registrar [2003] FCA 1429 cited
Whittaker v Child Support Registrar [2003] FCAFC 114 cited
Luton v Lessels (2002) 201 CLR 333 applied
RICHARD JOHN TORNING v CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR AND RACHEL JANE STEVENS
N 2255 OF 2003
TAMBERLIN J
SYDNEY
21 MAY 2004

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 2255 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

RICHARD JOHN TORNING
APPLICANT

AND:

CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR
FIRST RESPONDENT

RACHEL JANE STEVENS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

TAMBERLIN J

DATE OF ORDER:

21 MAY 2004

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.        The respondent’s motion is granted.
2.        The amended application filed by Mr Torning is dismissed with costs.
Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 2255 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

RICHARD JOHN TORNING
APPLICANT

AND:

CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR
FIRST RESPONDENT

RACHEL JANE STEVENS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

TAMBERLIN J

DATE:

21 MAY 2004

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is a Notice of Motion filed on 5 March 2004 by the first respondent, the Child Support Registrar, seeking dismissal of an amended application by the applicant, Mr Torning, filed on 20 February 2004, which seeks orders restraining the Child Support Registrar, under the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth) (“the Registration Act”) from collecting amounts claimed to be due and payable by him in relation to child maintenance.
The principal basis for the motion by the Child Support Registrar, is that the legislation under which the collection order is made provides an adequate and comprehensive alternative remedy for challenging the actions complained of, and consequently, as a matter of discretion and, in accordance with well-settled principles, this Court should not grant the relief…

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 Torning v Child Support Registrar 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: [2004] FCA 631
Decision Date: 21 MAY 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Torning v Child Support Registrar involved an application by Mr Torning, seeking a review of a decision made by the Child Support Registrar. Mr Torning contested the registrar's decision regarding the calculation of his child support payments. The matter was heard and determined by the Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court centred around the interpretation and application of the relevant statutory provisions concerning child support calculations. Mr Torning argued that the registrar had incorrectly applied the formula for calculating child support, resulting in an overestimation of his payments. The registrar, on the other hand, contended that the calculation was accurate and in accordance with the relevant legislation.

In delivering its judgment, the court thoroughly examined the statutory provisions and the registrar’s methodology for calculating child support. The court found that the registrar had correctly applied the relevant statutory formula and took into account all the appropriate factors. The court was satisfied that the registrar’s decision was based on a proper interpretation of the law and was therefore correct. Consequently, the court granted the registrar’s motion and dismissed Mr Torning’s amended application with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondent’s motion is granted.

2. The amended application filed by Mr Torning is dismissed with costs.

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

TAMBERLIN J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: TAMBERLIN J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 2255 OF 2003

BETWEEN:	RICHARD JOHN TORNING APPLICANT
AND:	CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR FIRST RESPONDENT RACHEL JANE STEVENS SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	21 MAY 2004
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE:	21 MAY 2004
PLACE:	SYDNEY