Yee and Child Support Registrar (Child support) - [2025] ARTA 1945

Yee and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2025] ARTA 1945 (22 August 2025)

Applicant: Mr Yee

Respondent: Child Support Registrar

Other Parties: Not applicable
Tribunal Number: 2025/BC029168
Tribunal: General Member S Hoffman
Place:Perth
Date:22 August 2025

Decision:
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – application for extension of time – non-agency payments – travel costs to spend time with children – not prescribed payments – explanation for the delay – misunderstanding – decision on the papers – no merit – extension of time refused – 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 Yee and Ms [A] are the parents of [Children A and B]. The father is required to pay child support to the mother.
On 4 October 2024, an officer from Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support) made five decisions to refuse to accept payments totalling $597.40 as non-agency payments (NAPs) (the original decisions). If the payments had been accepted as NAPs, the father’s child support liability would have been reduced by $597.40.
On 20 November 2024, the father lodged an objection to the original decisions.
Generally, a person has 28 days in which to lodge an objection to a decision made by Child Support. Because of the time that had elapsed between the date of the original decisions and 20 November 2024, the father requested an extension of time (EOT) so his objection could be considered.
On 31 December 2024, a Child Support officer decided to refuse the EOT request (the EOT decision).
On 16 January 2025, the father sought a review by this Tribunal of the EOT decision.
A hearing was originally listed for 18 June 2025. The father advised that he had a family law hearing scheduled for that date. The Tribunal hearing was then listed for 13 August 2025, with the father to attend via MS Teams audio (equivalent to conference telephone).
On the day of the hearing the Tribunal rang the father who said that he had forgotten about the hearing, he was at work and was unable to stay on the call for as long as might be required for a hearing. The Tribunal asked if he was agreeable to the Tribunal making a decision on the papers and he said that he was.
The Tribunal had before it a bundle of documents provided by the CSA (numbered 1 to 228), a copy of which had been provided to the father before the date of the hearing.

ISSUES

The statutory provisions relevant to this review are contained in the following Acts:

Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (the ART Act);
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Assessment Act); and
Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act1988 (the R & C Act).

The main issue…

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 Yee and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

Details

AGLC: Yee and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2025] ARTA 1945
Case: [2025] ARTA 1945
Decision Date: 22 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Yee sought an extension of time to object to decisions made by Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support) to refuse payments made by him as non-agency payments (NAPs). If accepted as NAPs, these payments would have reduced his child support liability by $597.40. The issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr Yee was entitled to an extension of time to object to the refusal of the payments as NAPs.

The Tribunal considered the statutory provisions relevant to the review, including the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024, the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988. The Tribunal also considered Mr Yee’s explanation for the delay in lodging his objection and whether it was reasonable in the circumstances. The Tribunal noted that Mr Yee had a family law hearing scheduled on the original hearing date, but this did not explain the delay in lodging the objection. The Tribunal also noted that Mr Yee had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal concluded that Mr Yee had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in lodging his objection. The Tribunal found that the decision to refuse the extension of time was reasonable and did not involve an error of law. The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review. No further orders were made.

Orders