Travers and Gibbon (SSAT Appeal)

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TRAVERS & GIBBON (SSAT APPEAL) [2011] FMCAfam 543

CHILD SUPPORT – Appeal from decision of SSAT – whether the SSAT erred in the consideration of the financial circumstances of the applicant – whether there was failure of natural justice.

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

LDME & JMA (SSAT Appeal) [2007] FMCAfam 712
Tasman & Tisdall [2008] FMCAfam 126

Applicant: MR TRAVERS

Respondent: MS GIBBON

File Number: BRC 9623 of 2010

Judgment of: Slack FM

Hearing date: 31 May 2011

Date of Last Submission: 31 May 2011

Delivered at: Brisbane

Delivered on: 20 July 2011

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appearing on his own behalf.

The Respondent appearing on her own behalf.

ORDERS

1. That the Amended Notice of Appeal (Child Support) from the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal filed on 11 March 2011 be dismissed.

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

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE

BRC 9623 of 2010

MR TRAVERS

Applicant

And

MS GIBBON

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (hereafter “the SSAT”) dated 9 September 2010.

2. There are seven grounds of appeal in the Amended Notice of Appeal (Child Support) filed on 11 March 2011.

Child support assessments and the decision of the SSAT

1. The SSAT decided to set aside the decision under review and substitute a decision that:

   for the period 1 January 2009 to 28 February 2011 the annual rate of child support payable by Mr Travers is set at $16,600.

2. In reaching that decision the SSAT sat in review of a decision of an objections officer dated 29 March 2010.

3. The following facts cited in the reasons of the SSAT do not appear in dispute:

   1.     Mr Travers and Ms Gibbon are the parents of [X], born in 2007.  [X] is recorded as being in Ms Gibbon’s greater than primary care.

   2.     The administrative assessment of child support for the period from 22 November 2008 to 21 February 2010 was based on an adjustable taxable income of $35,233 for Mr Travers (his 2007/2008 taxable income), and an adjusted taxable of $18,357 for Ms Gibbon (her 2007/2008 taxable income).  The assessment was for the payment of $2,887 annually by Mr Travers.

   3. By letter dated 20 February 2009, the Child Support Agency (CSA) initiated a departure from the administrative assessment under Part 6A of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (“the Act”) on the basis that Mr Travers’s income, property and financial resources were not properly reflected in the assessment (Reason 8).

   4.     Mr Travers did not participate in the hearing of the matter and on 18 March 2009 a senior case officer decided for the period 1 January 2009 to 28 February 2011 Mr Travers’ adjustable taxable income should be set at $150,000 and for the period 1…