WWYY and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review)

[2020] AATA 992

WWYY and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review) [2020] AATA 992 (23 March 2020)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2020/0665

Re:WWYY

APPLICANT

AndChild Support Registrar

RESPONDENT

AndWHDH

OTHER PARTY

DECISION

Tribunal:Mr A. Maryniak QC, Member

Date:23 March 2020

Date of written reasons:        15 April 2020

Place:Melbourne

The Tribunal declines to make the stay order sought.

.................[sgd]..................................................

Mr A. Maryniak QC, Member

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been removed 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.

Catchwords

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for stay order – whether application would be rendered nugatory if order not granted – whether any prejudice would be suffered by Applicant if order not granted – interlocutory application refused

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr A. Maryniak QC, Member

15 April 2020

1. This is an application by WWYY for a stay of a decision of the Social Security and Child Support Division of this Tribunal on 15 January 2019 which determined a child care apportionment of 50/50 from 31 May 2018, which varied an earlier apportionment decision of 59/41 in WWYY’s favour. 

2. The essential principles relating to the consideration of a stay are the general merits of the substantive application and the consequences of granting or refusing the stay sought, and whether the non-grant will render the substantive application nugatory.

3. The essence of the substantive dispute here is the determination of the care percentage.  The implementation of the current variation decreased the annual rate of child support payable by WHDH to $2,462 per annum, from $4,098.

4. The Tribunal heard oral evidence from both WWYY and WHDH and submissions from the parties.  It is not the task of the Tribunal to attempt to determine the merits of the substantive application during an interlocutory hearing. 

5. Having considered the oral evidence and the submissions of the parties, in particular noting that WWYY has assets in the range of $300,000 to $350,000, the Tribunal is satisfied that the substantive application will not be rendered nugatory should a stay not be granted and that no prejudice will arise from the non-grant of a stay.

6. In such circumstances the Tribunal declines to make the stay order sought.

I certify that the preceding 6 (six) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision of Mr A Maryniak QC, Member

.........................[sgd]..........................................

Associate

Dated: 15 April 2020

Date of hearing:	23 March 2020
Applicant:	Self-Represented
Advocate for the Respondent:	Mr T Noonan
Other Party:	Self-Represented