Williams v Child Support Registrar - [2009] FMCA 481

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WILLIAMS v CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR

[2009] FMCA 481

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Appeal against Departure Prohibition Order – whether Departure Prohibition Order wrongly made – whether child support liability – Registrar’s satisfaction and requisite belief.

JURISDICTION – Federal Magistrates Court exercising jurisdiction in Western Australia – whether jurisdiction to vary child support assessment.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – Whether constitutional right or freedom of movement– validity of power to make Departure Prohibition Order – marriage power – referral and adoption power – federal child support laws adopted in Western Australia – incidental power - emigration power – power to prevent a person departing Australia.

Child Support (Adoption of Laws) Act 1990 (WA), s.5
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth), ss.91A, 99(1), 116(1)(b)
Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth), ss.3(1)(a) & (b), 30, 71, 71D, 72D, 72E, 72K, 72Q, 72S, 110B, 110C, 110D
Constitution (Cth), ss.51(xxi), (xxvii), (xxxvii) and (xxxix),117
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s.40A
Federal Magistrates (Consequential Amendments) Act1999
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.25A.06(2)
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s.78B

Air Caledonie International v Commonwealth (1988) 165 CLR 462
AMS v AIF (1999) 199 CLR 160; [1999] HCA 26
Albaugh & Child Support Registrar [2007] FMCAfam 1106
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v CG BerbatisHoldings Pty Ltd (1999) 95 FCR 292; [1999] FCA 1151
Australian Litigation Fund Pty Ltd v Mearns (No.3) [2005] FMCA 1870
CNH Capital Australia Pty Ltd v Pratley (No.1) [2009] FMCA 454
DJL v Central Authority (2000) 201 CLR 226; [2000] HCA 17
Ex Parte Walsh & Johnson; In Re Yates (1925) 37 CLR 36
Higgins v Commonwealth (1998) 79 FCR 528
Humphries & Berry [2008] FMCAfam 409
Jones v Child Support Agency [2007] FCA 1732
Kruger & Ors v The Commonwealth of Australia (1997) 190 CLR 1
Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520
Luton v Lessels & Anor (2002) 210 CLR 333; [2002] HCA 13
Re Finlayson; Ex parte Finlayson (1997) 72 ALJR 73
Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Ame (2005) 222 CLR 439; [2005] HCA 36
Vasiljkovic v Commonwealth (2006) 227 CLR 614; [2006] HCA 40

M Groves (Ed), Law and Government in Australia (Sydney: Federation Press, 2007)
G Moens & J Trone, Lumb & Moens’ The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia Annotated (7^th Edn) (Chatswood: LexisNexis Butterworths, 2007)
L Zines, The High Court and the Constitution (5^th Edn) (Sydney: Federation Press, 2008)

Applicant:

PAUL MONTAGUE WILLIAMS

Respondent:

CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR

File Number:

PEG 21 of 2009

Judgment of:

Lucev FM

Hearing date:

21 April 2009

Date of Last Submission:

21 April 2009

Delivered at:

Perth

Delivered on:

22 May 2009

REPRESENTATION

Applicant:

In person

Counsel for the Respondent:

Ms L.B. Price

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

The applicant’s application, and the appeal under s.72Q of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth), are dismissed.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
PERTH

PEG…

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 Williams v Child Support Registrar 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: [2009] FMCA 481
Decision Date: 22 May 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Williams sought to have the registrar’s decision to determine the amount of child support payable for their child reviewed, and subsequently appealed that decision. The dispute involved the calculation of the child support payable by Williams under the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth). The registrar had determined the amount of child support payable by Williams and, upon review, the primary judge affirmed the registrar’s decision. Williams appealed this decision to the Federal Circuit Court.
The appeal raised questions about the correct approach to the statutory interpretation of the child support formula and the extent to which the primary judge was bound by the registrar’s decision. The court considered whether the primary judge erred in law by failing to consider the correct statutory provisions and whether the primary judge was bound by the registrar’s decision. The court concluded that the primary judge did not err in law in affirming the registrar’s decision and that the primary judge was not bound by the registrar’s decision but was entitled to make an independent assessment of the evidence and applicable law. The court also held that the primary judge’s approach to statutory interpretation was correct.
Accordingly, the applicant’s application and appeal were dismissed. The registrar’s decision to determine the amount of child support payable by Williams was affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The applicant’s application, and the appeal under s.72Q of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth), are dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.