Watling and Halsey (Child support) - [2021] AATA 3680

Watling and Halsey (Child support) [2021] AATA 3680 (12 July 2021)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER:  2020/BC019414
APPLICANT:  Mr Watling
OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar
Ms Halsey

TRIBUNAL:Member F Staden
DECISION DATE: 12 July 2021
DECISION:

The tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides that:

For the period 1 August 2019 until 31 July 2027, Mr Watling’s annual child support liability is increased by $5,000.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – departure determination – income, property and financial resources of the liable parent – compensation payment received by liable parent – adjusted taxable income of the liable parent varied - decision under review set aside and substituted

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 so as not to identify involved individuals as required by subsections 16(2AB)-16(2AC) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

REASONS FOR DECISION

BACKGROUND

Mr Watling and Ms Halsey are the separated parents of [Child 1], born 2011, and [Child 2], born 2013 (the children). The children are recorded as being in the greater than primary care (100%) of Ms Halsey since 20 June 2015.
There has been a child support assessment for this case from 23 September 2015. Mr Watling is the parent assessed as liable to pay child support. Ms Halsey opted for collection of child support by Services Australia (then Department of Human Services) – Child Support (Child Support) from 26 October 2015.
On 13 August 2019, Ms Halsey applied for a change of assessment on the basis that the child support assessment did not correctly reflect Mr Watling’s income, property and financial resources (Reason 8A). She subsequently provided material in relation to Mr Watling’s receipt of a lump sum compensation payment.
There are no previous change of assessment decisions in this case. The relevant child support assessments here were:
·     For the period 1 July 2019 to 31 August 2019, Mr Watling’s annual child support liability was $8,320 based on Mr Watling’s 2017/18 adjusted taxable income of $59,299 and Ms Halsey’s 2017/18 adjusted taxable income of $29,374;
·     For the period 1 September 2019 to 15 September 2019, Mr Watling’s annual child support liability was $456 based on Mr Watling’s 2018/19 adjusted taxable income of $26,940 and Ms Halsey’s 2018/19 adjusted taxable income of $57,191;
·     For the period 16 September 2019 to 16 September 2019, Mr Watling’s annual child support liability was $435 based on Mr Watling’s 2018/19 adjusted taxable income of $26,940 and Ms Halsey’s 2018/19 adjusted taxable income of $57,191 (the minimum amount was reduced because Mr Watling’s other liable child was noted on the assessment);
·     For the period 17 September 2019 to 14 October 2019, Mr Watling’s annual child support liability was $427 based on Mr Watling’s 2019/20 income estimate of $nil and Ms Halsey’s 2018/19 adjusted taxable income of $57,191;
·     For the period 15 October 2019 to 2…

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.

Continue reading Watling and Halsey (Child support)

Details

AGLC: Watling and Halsey (Child support) [2021] AATA 3680
Case: [2021] AATA 3680
Decision Date: 12 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the matter of Watling and Halsey concerning a departure determination made under the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988*. The dispute centred on the adjusted taxable income of the liable parent, with the applicant seeking to vary this income based on a compensation payment received.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the compensation payment received by the liable parent constituted an income, property, or financial resource that should be taken into account when calculating child support liability, thereby justifying a departure from the standard assessment. The Tribunal was required to determine if the existing assessment accurately reflected the liable parent's financial capacity.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the nature of the compensation payment and its impact on the liable parent's overall financial position. It applied the principles of child support legislation, which allow for adjustments to assessed income where it would be inequitable to disregard certain financial resources. The Tribunal found that the compensation payment was a financial resource that should be factored into the adjusted taxable income, as it significantly altered the liable parent's capacity to pay child support. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the original decision and substituted its own determination.

Orders