Weston and Weston and Anor (SSAT Appeal)

This case involved an appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia concerning a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) regarding child support. The appellant, Ms. Weston, sought to set aside the SSAT's decision and have the matter remitted for a rehearing. The SSAT had previously overturned a decision by the Child Support Agency that had set the father's income at $67,000, opting instead for no departure from the administrative assessment of child support.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal, each alleging that the SSAT had misinformed itself and erred in law. These grounds related to the Tribunal's findings regarding the father's taxable income, his casual employment on the Sunshine Coast, and the significance of his move to that location in relation to his income. Specifically, the appellant contended that the Tribunal failed to properly consider her submissions and correspondence concerning the father's earning capacity and the changes in his income.

The Court was required to determine whether the grounds of appeal raised a question of law, as mandated by section 110B of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988. Drawing on established authorities, including *Comcare v Etheridge* and *Birdseye v Australian Securities and Investment Commission*, the Court emphasised that appeals under this section are limited to questions of law and require precise formulation. The Court found that the appellant's grounds, while framed as errors of law, primarily concerned factual findings and mixed questions of fact and law, rather than pure questions of law. The Court noted that the appellant's arguments, such as the Tribunal ignoring relevant material or misinforming itself, were essentially factual disputes that did not meet the threshold for an appeal on a question of law.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, finding that no question of law had been properly identified or raised by the appellant. The Court ordered that the Notice of Appeal filed on 21 June 2012 be dismissed.