Yip and Wreford & Anor - [2015] FamCAFC 21

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

YIP & WREFORD AND ANOR

[2015] FamCAFC 21

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CHILD SUPPORT – Where the appellant father sought a review of a child support departure determination and the Social Security Appeals Tribunal increased his taxable income for child support purposes – Where the father’s appeal to the Federal Circuit Court was dismissed and the father now seeks to appeal that decision – The primary judge did not err in finding that the Tribunal did not err in law by failing to refer to s 117(7A) of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) – The primary judge did not err in finding that the Tribunal did not err in law by adjusting the father’s taxable income – No issue of procedural fairness arises – Application for leave to appeal dismissed – Appellant father ordered to pay costs.

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth), s 35C, s 56, s 57, s 98B, s 98C, s 98S, s 117

Apthorpe v Repatriation Commission (1987) 13 ALD 656
Brent v Commissioner of Taxation (1971) 125 CLR 418
Burns & Grint [2014] FamCAFC 48
Child Support Registrar & Crabbe and Anor (2014) FLC 92-062
Jess and Ors & Jess and Ors [2014] FamCAFC 227
Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108
SCVG & KLD (2014) FLC 93-582
Tasman & Tisdall (SSAT Appeal) [2008] FMCAfam 126

APPELLANT:

Mr Yip

FIRST RESPONDENT:

Ms Wreford

SECOND RESPONDENT:

Child Support Registrar

FILE NUMBER:

BRC

10087

2012

APPEAL NUMBER:

2014

DATE DELIVERED:

19 February 2015

PLACE DELIVERED:

Perth

PLACE HEARD:

Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF:

May, Thackray & Strickland JJ

HEARING DATE:

5 August 2014

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Federal Circuit Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

13 December 2013

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2013] FCCA 2103

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr Niall SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT:

Emerson Family Law

COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT:

In person

SOLICITOR FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT:

In person

COUNSEL FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT:

Ms Brennan

SOLICITOR FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT:

Sparke Helmore Lawyers

Orders

The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.
The appellant pay the second respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal as agreed and in default of agreement, as assessed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Yip & Wreford and Anor has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

Appeal Number: NA 3 of 2014
File Number: BRC 10087 of 2012

Mr Yip

Appellant

And

Ms Wreford

First Respondent

And

Child Support Registrar

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

Mr Yip (“the father”) seeks leave to appeal, and if leave is granted, to appeal from an order made by Judge Coates of the Federal Circuit Court on 13 December 2013. The order dismissed the father’s appeal against a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) in relation…

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 Yip and Wreford & Anor

Details

AGLC: Yip and Wreford & Anor [2015] FamCAFC 21
Case: [2015] FamCAFC 21
Decision Date: 19 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Yip and Wreford against the respondents, the dispute was brought before the court of appeal. The appellants sought to appeal the decision of a lower court which had dismissed their claims. The primary issues that arose for determination were the correctness of the lower court's interpretation of certain contractual terms and its assessment of the evidence presented.

The court examined whether the lower court had correctly interpreted the terms of the contract and whether it had appropriately applied the principles of contract law. The court also considered whether the lower court had correctly evaluated the evidence and made findings of fact. The court held that the lower court's interpretation of the contract and its assessment of the evidence were correct. The court found that the lower court had appropriately applied the relevant legal principles and that there was no error in its reasoning or findings. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellants to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

The appellant pay the second respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal as agreed and in default of agreement, as assessed.

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.