Underwood and Bovary (Child support)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Bovary against a decision of the Child Support Registrar, which had been affirmed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The dispute centred on whether certain payments made by Mr Bovary to Mrs Underwood, and subsequently to Mrs Underwood's parents, should be credited against his child support liability. The Registrar had determined that these payments were not prescribed payments and therefore should not be credited.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the payments made by Mr Bovary, including a significant superannuation rollover to Mrs Underwood, constituted payments that should be credited against his child support obligations. This involved determining the nature of the payments, particularly in light of a Deed entered into between the parties and Mrs Underwood's parents concerning an investment and the sale of the former matrimonial home, as well as various court orders and correspondence relating to these financial arrangements.

The court considered the evidence, including emails, statutory declarations, interim and final Family Court orders, and correspondence from legal representatives. It noted that the payments were made in the context of complex property settlement and debt recovery proceedings between Mr Bovary, Mrs Underwood, and Mrs Underwood's parents. The court reasoned that the superannuation rollover, while substantial, was part of a broader settlement of property and debt disputes, and was not made as a direct payment for child support. The court applied the principles that payments must be prescribed by the relevant legislation to be credited against child support liabilities, and that payments made to satisfy other financial obligations, even if agreed between the parties, do not automatically qualify.

The court found that the payments in question were not prescribed payments under the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was affirmed.