Tully v Child Support Registrar

Link copied
Case Copied 15 min read

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TULLY v CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR & ANOR [2017] FCCA 218
Catchwords:
CHILD SUPPORT – Appeal of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – three grounds of appeal – applicant unsuccessful on all grounds – appeal dismissed.

Legislation:

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, ss.2A, 44AAA

Family Law Act 1975, s.76(1)
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, div.2

Cases cited:

Child Support Registrar & Crabbe and Anor [2014] FamCAFC 10
Child Support Registrar & Crowley and Anor [2015] FamCAFC 76

Haritos v Commission of Taxation [2015] FCAFC 92

Kostas v HIA Insurance [2010] HCA 32
Mabry & Mabry & Anor (SSAT Appeal) [2010] FMCAfam 388
Mee v Ferguson (1986) 10 FamLR 971
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZIAI and Anor (2009) 259 ALR 429

Minister of Immigration v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259

Penman & Child Support Registrar and Anor [2015] FamCAFC 492

Applicant: MR TULLY
First Respondent: CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR
Second Respondent: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
File Number: BRG 522 of 2016
Judgment of: Judge Cassidy
Hearing date: 18 November 2016
Date of Last Submission: 18 November 2016
Delivered at: Brisbane
Delivered on: 16 February 2017

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared in person
Special Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms Rayment
Solicitors for the First Respondent: Mills Oakley Lawyers
Counsel for the Second Respondent: Dr Sayers
Solicitors for the Second Respondent: Rice Naughton

ORDERS

  1. That the amended notice of appeal filed on 21 August 2016 be dismissed.

  2. That the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $6,948.00 within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this Order.

  3. That the second respondent file and serve written submission and any affidavit material in relation to the indemnity costs application by no later than 4.00pm on 16 March 2017.

  4. That the applicant file and serve written submissions in reply and any affidavit material in relation to the indemnity costs application by no later than 4.00pm on 13 April 2017.

  5. That this matter be adjourned for judgment at 9.30am on 4 May 2017 in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia at Brisbane.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Tully v Child Support Registrar & Anor is approved pursuant to s.110X(4)(h) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE

BRG 522 of 2016

MR TULLY

Applicant

And

CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. This is an appeal by Mr Tully from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘the AAT’) in relation to an assessment of child support. That decision was made by Ms K Buxton on 4 May 2016. Ms Buxton’s decision was:

    “The tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides that for the period 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2017 the annual rate of child support is increased by $15,600 per annum (for private school fees).”

  2. The Child Support Registrar (‘the Registrar’) and the mother, Ms…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Tully 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
[2017] FCCA 218
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Tully, appealed a decision of the Child Support Registrar to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, presided over by Judge Cassidy. The core of the dispute concerned the Registrar's decision regarding child support payments.

The court was required to determine whether the Registrar's decision was correct and whether the amended notice of appeal filed by the applicant should be upheld. A secondary issue arose concerning indemnity costs.

Judge Cassidy dismissed the applicant's amended notice of appeal. The court's reasoning and the specific legal principles applied in reaching this decision are not detailed in the provided text. However, the orders indicate that the applicant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs, with further directions given for submissions regarding an indemnity costs application. The matter was ultimately adjourned for judgment on the indemnity costs application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

That the amended notice of appeal filed on 21 August 2016 be dismissed.

2.

That the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $6,948.00 within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this Order.

3.

That the second respondent file and serve written submission and any affidavit material in relation to the indemnity costs application by no later than 4.00pm on 16 March 2017.

4.

That the applicant file and serve written submissions in reply and any affidavit material in relation to the indemnity costs application by no later than 4.00pm on 13 April 2017.

5.

That this matter be adjourned for judgment at 9.30am on 4 May 2017 in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia at Brisbane.

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.