Zaarour and Piranavan (Child support) - [2024] AATA 3245

Zaarour and Piranavan (Child support) [2024] AATA 3245 (27 June 2024)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER:  2024/MC027352
APPLICANT:  Ms Zaarour
OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar
Mr Piranavan

TRIBUNAL:Senior Member R Ellis
DECISION DATE: 27 June 2024
DECISION:

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides that:

for the period from 22 August 2023 to 28 April 2027 or a terminating event occurs for [Child 2] the adjusted taxable income of Mr Piranavan is varied to $53,000;
for the period from 22 August 2023 to 30 June 2024 the adjusted taxable income of Ms Zaarour is varied to $126,000; and
for the period from 1 July 2024 to 6 September 2024 the adjusted taxable income of Ms Zaarour is varied to $124,888.

Notation – this means the objection decision of 3 February 2023 ceases to have effect from 21 August 2023.

CATCHWORDS
CHILD SUPPORT – departure from the administrative assessment – adjusted taxable income – applications by both parents – mother’s income, property and financial resources – father’s income, property and financial resources or earning capacity, and special needs of child – mother’s senior, part-time work on fixed-term contract, and own company not currently generating an income, or expected to – father’s self-employment, investment properties and inheritance – age, injury, reduced hours and limited job tasks – cash payments declared and personal use of business resources and finances – children’s needs not out of the ordinary – decision under review set aside and substituted

REASONS FOR DECISION

BACKGROUND

This review is about whether or not there should be a departure from the administrative assessment of child support.
Ms Zaarour and Mr Piranavan are the parents of [Child 1] (born December 2006) and [Child 2] (born April 2009). There has been a child support assessment in place since 17 February 2020.
The following administrative assessments of child support are under consideration:
·     for the period from 1 July 2022 to 13 April 2023 Mr Piranavan was assessed to pay an annual rate of $7,200 in accordance with a change of assessment decision made on 3 February 2023 (the Tribunal notes that [Child 1] and [Child 2] were in the 100 per cent care of Ms Zaarour);
·     for the period from 14 April 2023 to 30 June 2023 Ms Zaarour was assessed to pay an annual rate of $7,940 after an offset amount payable by Mr Piranavan in accordance with a change of assessment decision made on 3 February 2023 (the Tribunal notes that [Child 1] was in the 100 per cent care of Mr Piranavan and [Child 2] was in the 100 per cent care of Ms Zaarour);
·     for the period from 1 July 2023 to 28 July 2023 Ms Zaarour was assessed to pay an annual rate of $5,062 after an offset amount payable by Mr Piranavan in accordance with a change of assessment decision made on 3 February 2023 (the Tribunal notes that [Child 1] was in the 100 per cent…

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 Zaarour and Piranavan (Child support) 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: [2024] AATA 3245
Decision Date: 27 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application by both the mother and the father for a departure from the administrative assessment of child support. The dispute centred on the parties' respective incomes, property, financial resources, and earning capacities, as well as the special needs of the child. The decision was made by Senior Member R Ellis.

The court was required to determine whether to depart from the child support assessment. This involved considering the mother's income from her senior, part-time work on a fixed-term contract, and the financial position of her company, which was not currently generating income. The court also had to assess the father's financial circumstances, including his self-employment, investment properties, and inheritance, taking into account his age, injury, reduced hours, and limited job tasks. Furthermore, the court needed to consider any declared cash payments and the personal use of business resources and finances by the father, and whether the children's needs were out of the ordinary.

Senior Member R Ellis reasoned that a departure from the administrative assessment was warranted. The court found that the father's declared income did not accurately reflect his true financial position, given his self-employment, investment properties, inheritance, and the personal use of business resources. The court also considered the father's reduced work capacity due to age, injury, and limited job tasks. While the mother's income was also considered, the primary focus for departure was on the father's circumstances and the disparity between his declared income and his overall financial capacity. The court concluded that the children's needs were not out of the ordinary.

The decision under review was set aside and substituted.

Orders