Weadall and Sjoberg (Child support) - [2024] ARTA 960

Weadall and Sjoberg (Child support) [2024] ARTA 960 (20 December 2024)

Applicant/s: Mr Weadall

Respondent: Child Support Registrar

Other Parties: Ms Sjoberg

Tribunal Number: 2024/BC027904
Tribunal: Senior Member S Trotter
Place:Brisbane
Date:20 December 2024

Decision:
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

CATCHWORDS
CHILD SUPPORT – departure from the administrative assessment – income, property and financial resources – family trust – father’s businesses and farm – losses from first business and farm, and interest on loan and expenses for second business – regularity and amount of expenses – personal benefit from expenses – financial statements and tax returns – intermingling of personal and business affairs – share of rental income – mother’s income and expenditure, and gifts and loans from parents – self-support amount – decision under review affirmed

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

Mr Weadall and Ms Sjoberg are the parents of [Child 1] (born September 2013) and [Child 2] (born May 2015) (the children). A child support case was registered with Services Australia – the Child Support Agency (Child Support) in relation to the children in 2013. The children are recorded as being in the shared care of Mr Weadall and Ms Sjoberg.
The Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act) provides for an administrative assessment of the child support payable. It uses a formula which contains variables such as the parents’ adjusted taxable incomes, their percentages of care and ages of any relevant children. The Act also provides for a departure from the administrative assessment (commonly termed a change of assessment) in certain circumstances.
On 22 August 2023, Ms Sjoberg lodged a departure application with Child Support seeking a change from the usual administrative assessment of child support on the basis of the income, property and financial resources of Mr Weadall.
Absent a departure from the administrative assessment, child support was assessed as payable by Mr Weadall as follows:

(a)$0 for the period 9 August 2023 to 31 August 2023 (based upon 2021/2022 adjusted taxable income of nil for Mr Weadall and $18,348 for Ms Sjoberg); and
(b)$1,302 per annum for the period 1 September 2023 to 30 November 2024 (based upon 2022/2023 adjusted taxable income of $36,395 for Mr Weadall and $19,832 for Ms Sjoberg).

On 3 January 2024, Child Support varied Mr Weadall’s adjusted taxable income to $157,631 per annum resulting in child support payable by Mr Weadall of $17,560 per annum from 1 September 2023 to 30 November 2024.
Mr Weadall objected to this decision and, on 2 May 2024, a Child Support objections officer partly allowed the objection varying Mr Weadall’s adjusted taxable income to $108,785 per annum, resulting in child support payable by Mr Weadall of:

(a)$11,654 per annum from 1 September 2023 to 7 January 2024; and
(b)$9,744 per…

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 Weadall and Sjoberg (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: [2024] ARTA 960
Decision Date: 20 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Weadall and Sjoberg, the parties are Mr Weadall and Ms Sjoberg, parents of two children. The dispute concerns the administrative assessment of child support, specifically whether a departure from the usual administrative assessment is justified based on Mr Weadall's income, property, and financial resources. The application for review was made to the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART). The Tribunal determined whether grounds exist to depart from the administrative assessment and if such a departure would be just and equitable and otherwise proper. The Tribunal found that Mr Weadall's actual income and resources were not accurately reflected in his adjusted taxable income, warranting a change of assessment. The Tribunal concluded that varying Mr Weadall's adjusted taxable income to $108,275 for child support purposes from 1 September 2023 to 31 January 2026 is just and equitable, and otherwise proper. The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.

Orders