Watcham and O’Hanlon (Child support) - [2025] ARTA 622

Watcham and O’Hanlon (Child support) [2025] ARTA 622 (11 March 2025)
Applicant:  Mr Watcham
Respondent:  Child Support Registrar
Other Parties:       Ms O’Hanlon
Tribunal Number:   2024/SC028260
Tribunal: General Member R Prasad
Place:Sydney
Date:11 March 2025

Decision: The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Statement made on 11 March 2025 at 2:43pm

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision and replaced with generic information pursuant to subsection 16(2AB) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.
Statement of Reasons
BACKGROUND
1.Mr Watcham (the father) and Ms O’Hanlon (the mother) are the parents of three children, twins born [date] February 2008 and a younger child born [date] November 2009, who are subject to an administrative assessment. Since 11 January 2011, this case was registered with Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support), with collection from 22 February 2022. The existing percentages of care are that the mother has 100% care of the children from 1 August 2023.
2.The father lodged an application to change the child support assessment (the departure application) on 5 January 2024. On 10 May 2024, Child Support refused his application as no reason had been established to change the assessment.
3.On 18 May 2024, the father lodged an objection. An objections officer, on 12 July 2024, disallowed the objection (the objection decision).
4.On 15 July 2024, the father sought review of the objection decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT).
5.From 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal. The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT. This decision and statement of reasons is made by the Tribunal.
6.A directions hearing was held on 16 December 2024. Directions were issued on 17 December 2024 requiring compliance by 10 January 2025.
7.The hearing took place on 10 February 2025. The father attended the hearing by MS Teams audio and provided documentation,[1] as did the mother.[2] The Child Support Registrar elected not to be represented at the hearing, but provided documentation.[3]
[1] A1 to A171.
[2] B1 to B7.
[3] T1 to T231.

ISSUES
8.The issues before me are:
a. does a ground exist for departure from the administrative assessment of child support; and if so,
b. would it be just and equitable and otherwise proper to make a particular determination.

CONSIDERATION
What does the law say in relation to departure of administrative assessments?
9.Section 98C of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act) provides that a decision to depart from an administrative assessment may be made if each of the following requirements are met:
a. at…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Watcham and O’Hanlon (Child support) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] ARTA 622
Decision Date: 11 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Tribunal was a review of a decision by the Child Support Registrar to deny an application by Mr Watcham (the father) to change his child support assessment. The father had argued that his significant tax debt and other financial commitments reduced his capacity to provide child support, and that these circumstances were special and out of the ordinary. The Tribunal was required to determine whether there was a valid ground for departure from the administrative assessment under section 98C of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, and if so, whether it would be just and equitable and otherwise proper to depart from the assessment.

The Tribunal found that the father had not provided a full and frank disclosure of his financial circumstances as required. The father's evidence was inconsistent and incomplete, particularly in relation to his income, property, and financial resources. The Tribunal noted that the father had significant financial assets, including shares in a trust and rental properties, which were not adequately explained. The father also had the capacity to make regular repayments on a car loan, which the Tribunal did not consider to be a necessary expense. Given the lack of a full and frank disclosure, the Tribunal was unable to be satisfied that the father's expenses significantly reduced his capacity to financially support the children. The Tribunal concluded that the ground for departure had not been established and affirmed the decision under review.

The Tribunal's decision was based on the father's failure to provide a complete and consistent account of his financial circumstances, which is a critical requirement for any application to change a child support assessment. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of a full and frank disclosure, noting that adverse inferences can be drawn when a party fails to comply with directions to make such a disclosure. The Tribunal's decision underscores the need for applicants to provide accurate and comprehensive information to support their claims for a change in child support assessment.

Orders