Victor & Duncan & Anor (SSAT Appeal)

This matter came before Judge Scarlett on an appeal from a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT). The appellant sought to have the SSAT's decision set aside and remitted for a rehearing, with specific directions regarding the inquiry into the respondent mother's financial circumstances. The SSAT had previously set aside a decision under review and substituted a new decision that reduced the appellant's taxable income and increased the respondent's taxable income.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the SSAT had made erroneous findings of fact, whether such errors could constitute jurisdictional error, and whether the SSAT's decision was perverse and unreasonable. The appellant also contended that the SSAT erred in failing to make findings regarding grounds for departure from administrative child support assessments, in its approach to the appellant's income and earning capacity, and in its consideration of the respondent's financial position. Procedural fairness was also raised, specifically whether the appellant was denied procedural fairness and whether the SSAT had a duty to inquire further into the respondent's financial circumstances.

Judge Scarlett reasoned that an appeal to the court was limited to questions of law, and that the SSAT's findings of fact, even if considered erroneous, did not necessarily amount to jurisdictional error unless they were so unreasonable as to be perverse. The court found that the SSAT's decision was not perverse or unreasonable, and that the appellant had not been denied procedural fairness. The court also determined that the SSAT was not required to make the extensive inquiries into the respondent's financial circumstances that the appellant sought. The ordinary meaning of "income" and "financial resources" were considered, with the latter being a question of fact for the SSAT.

The Amended Notice of Appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal was affirmed. The court also made orders regarding the filing and service of submissions in support of and in opposition to any application for costs.