Walton and Cannon (Child support)

The case of *Walton and Cannon (Child Support)* concerned a dispute over the crediting of certain payments made by the father, Mr. Walton, towards the child support assessment of his child with the mother, Ms. Cannon. The father sought to have payments made for orthodontics and school books credited against his child support liability, arguing they were "prescribed payments" under the relevant legislation. The Registrar had previously determined that these payments should not be credited. The father appealed this decision to the court.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the payments made by the father for orthodontics and school books constituted "prescribed payments" for the purposes of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth) and, if so, whether those amounts ought not to be credited in the circumstances of the case. The court was required to interpret the provisions of the Act concerning non-agency payments and the discretion of the Registrar to credit such payments.

The court considered the definition of "prescribed payments" and the conditions under which such payments could be credited against a child support liability. It was noted that while payments for certain expenses could be prescribed, the legislation also provided for circumstances where the Registrar might determine that such payments ought not to be credited. The court's reasoning focused on the specific nature of the payments made by the father and whether they fell within the scope of the prescribed payments that could be credited, taking into account the overall child support obligations and the welfare of the child. The court ultimately found that the Registrar's decision was not soundly based.

The court set aside the decision of the Registrar and substituted its own decision, ordering that the amounts paid by the father for orthodontics and school books be credited against his child support liability.