Van de Berg & Van de Berg

Case [2009] FamCAFC 112


FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VAN DE BERG & VAN DE BERG [2009] FamCAFC 112

FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – CHILD SUPPORT – where the Magistrate ordered that Child Support Agency assessments against the father be departed from – where the father argued that there were errors in two dates and in a monetary amount in the Magistrate’s orders and sought the Full Court amend the orders to fix the errors – where leave to appeal required – leave to appeal granted – appeal allowed – orders amended by Full Court.

FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – COSTS – costs certificates granted.

Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth)
APPLICANT/APPELLANT: Mr Van de Berg
RESPONDENT: Ms Van de Berg
FILE NUMBER: PTW 4816 of 1994
APPEAL NUMBER: WA 32L of 2008
DATE DELIVERED: 3 July 2009
PLACE DELIVERED: Perth
PLACE HEARD: Perth
JUDGMENT OF: Finn, Coleman and May JJ
HEARING DATE: 2 July 2009
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Magistrates Court of Western Australia
LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 29 April 2008
LOWER COURT MNC:

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr Jones
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT: Peterson & Dowding
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Self represented

Orders

  1. That the applicant/appellant father be granted leave to appeal paragraph 1 of the orders of 29 April 2008.

  2. That the appeal against paragraph 1 of the orders of 29 April 2008 be allowed.

  3. That sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 1 of the orders of 29 April 2008 be amended to read:

    “from 1 January 2003 to 7 September 2003 on the basis that the liable parent’s child support income amount is $88,900.00 per annum; and”

  4. That sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 1 of the orders of 29 April 2008 be amended to read:

    “from 1 January 2005 to 1 July 2005 on the basis that the liable parent’s child support income amount is $94,067.00 per annum.”

  5. That the Court grants to the applicant/appellant father a costs certificate pursuant to the provisions of s 9 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 being a certificate that, in the opinion of the Court, it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise a payment under that Act to the appellant father in respect of the costs incurred by the applicant/appellant father in relation to the appeal.

  6. That the Court grants to the respondent mother a costs certificate pursuant to the provisions of s 6 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 being a certificate that, in the opinion of the Court, it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise a payment under that Act to the respondent mother in respect of the costs incurred by the respondent mother in relation to the appeal.

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

THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PERTH

Appeal Number: WA 32L of 2008
File Number: (P)PTW 4816 of 1994

Mr Van de Berg

Applicant/Appellant…

Continue reading Van de Berg & Van de Berg

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Van de Berg & Van de Berg [2009] FamCAFC 112
Case
[2009] FamCAFC 112
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Van de Berg & Van de Berg was an appeal against a decision of a magistrate in relation to child support obligations. The father, the applicant, sought to amend the magistrate's orders on the basis that there were errors in the dates and the monetary amounts specified. The case was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The father contended that the magistrate had erred in two respects: first, in departing from the Child Support Agency assessments by setting the liable parent’s child support income amount at $88,900 per annum for the period from 1 January 2003 to 7 September 2003, rather than $83,700 per annum; and second, in setting the liable parent’s child support income amount at $94,067 per annum for the period from 1 January 2005 to 1 July 2005, rather than $87,834 per annum. The Full Court allowed the appeal, amending the magistrate's orders as sought by the father. The Full Court found that the magistrate had indeed erred in the dates and the monetary amounts specified in the orders. The Full Court also granted costs certificates to both the father and the mother, pursuant to the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981. The Court found that it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise a payment to each party in respect of the costs incurred in relation to the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

That the applicant/appellant father be granted leave to appeal paragraph 1 of the orders of 29 April 2008.

2.

That the appeal against paragraph 1 of the orders of 29 April 2008 be allowed.

3.

That sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 1 of the orders of 29 April 2008 be amended to read:

“from 1 January 2003 to 7 September 2003 on the basis that the liable parent’s child support income amount is $88,900.00 per annum; and”

4.

That sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 1 of the orders of 29 April 2008 be amended to read:

“from 1 January 2005 to 1 July 2005 on the basis that the liable parent’s child support income amount is $94,067.00 per annum.”

5.

That the Court grants to the applicant/appellant father a costs certificate pursuant to the provisions of s 9 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 being a certificate that, in the opinion of the Court, it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise a payment under that Act to the appellant father in respect of the costs incurred by the applicant/appellant father in relation to the appeal.

6.

That the Court grants to the respondent mother a costs certificate pursuant to the provisions of s 6 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 being a certificate that, in the opinion of the Court, it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise a payment under that Act to the respondent mother in respect of the costs incurred by the respondent mother in relation to the appeal.

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.