TZBP and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review)

This matter concerned an application by TZBP for review of an Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) decision that affirmed a Child Support Registrar's decision regarding the percentage of care for two children. JMRN, the other party, sought to dismiss TZBP's application, arguing it was vexatious and not in the children's best interests. The Tribunal was asked to determine whether TZBP's application should be dismissed under section 42B of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth).

The central legal issue was whether TZBP's application for review was frivolous, vexatious, misconceived, lacking in substance, had no reasonable prospect of success, or constituted an abuse of the Tribunal's process, as contemplated by section 42B of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth). This required the Tribunal to consider the merits of the substantive application to determine if it was futile or hopeless.

The Tribunal considered the principles established in *Theo v Registrar, Department of Family and Community Services* and *Duncan v Fayle*, which emphasise the need to ascertain if an application is futile before dismissing it. The Tribunal also applied the principles from *Romanov-Hughes and Comcare*, which outline that proceedings can be considered vexatious if instituted with the intention to annoy, brought for collateral purposes, or are so obviously untenable or groundless as to be utterly hopeless. In this instance, the Tribunal found that TZBP had provided detailed reasons for seeking review and that the application was not so obviously untenable or groundless as to warrant dismissal at this interlocutory stage.

Consequently, the Tribunal refused JMRN's application for dismissal.