Zammit and Taffey and Anor

Link copied
Case Copied 18 min read

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ZAMMIT & TAFFEY & ANOR [2016] FCCA 211
Catchwords:
CHILD SUPPORT – Administrative Appeals Tribunal – whether the Tribunal failed to apply the correct test – whether the Tribunal’s findings were against the weight of the evidence – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Child Support (Registration and Collection Act) 1988, ss.110K, 111F

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, s.117(2)

Sagal & Child Support Registrar & Anor (SSAT Appeal) [2013] FCCA 51
LDME & JMA (SSAT Appeal) [2007] FMCAfam 712
Australian Postal Corporation v Hughes [2009] FCA 1057

Humphries & Berry (SSAT Appeal) [2008] FMCAfam 409

Appellant: MR ZAMMIT
First Respondent: MS TAFFEY
Second Respondent: CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR
File Number: ADC 1844 of 2013
Judgment of: Judge Kelly
Hearing date: 13 April 2015
Date of Last Submission: 13 April 2015
Delivered at: Adelaide
Delivered on: 9 February 2016

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Appellant: Dr R Gray
Solicitors for the Appellant: Robert Chrzaszcz & Associates
Counsel for the First Respondent: Dr R Savvas
Solicitors for the First Respondent: Southern Community Justice Centre
Counsel for the Second Respondent: Ms D Smith
Solicitors for the First Respondent: Child Support Registrar

ORDERS

  1. The Notice of Appeal filed 25 July 2014 (as amended on 31 March 2015) is dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Zammit & Taffey & Anor is approved pursuant to s.110X(4)(h) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ADELAIDE

ADC 1844 of 2013

MR ZAMMIT

Appellant

And

MS TAFFEY

First Respondent

And

CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. Before the Court is the Appellant’s Amended Notice of Appeal filed 31 March 2015.  The Appellant seeks to appeal the decision pronounced by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (“SSAT”) where the Tribunal set aside a decision of the Child Support Registrar and substituted a new decision as follows: 

    1That for the period 23 July 2013 to 30 September 2015 the Appellant’s adjusted taxable income be set at $112,000 per annum.

  2. The Appellant asserts that the SSAT made an error of law in pronouncing its findings.  Both the First Respondent and the Second Respondent (the Child Support Registrar) argue that there was no error of law and the decision of the SSAT should stand.

Background

  1. The background facts are taken from the SSAT reasons and are not in dispute. The Appellant and the First Respondent are parents of the child X, born (omitted) 2003.  The parties separated in July 2012.  X remained in the First Respondent’s care after separation and she sought a Child Support Assessment shortly after separation.  

  2. In 1999 the Appellant established his company (omitted) Pty Ltd (the company) and the Zammit Family Trust (the Trust), with (omitted) P/L as the Trustee. The Appellant operated his business, (business omitted), through the Trust.  The Appellant operated this business during the parties’ relationship and continued to work in the business since separation.

  3. The Appellant held the position of sole Director and Secretary of…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Zammit and Taffey and Anor 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
[2016] FCCA 211
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Zammit and Taffey and Anor*, Judge Kelly of the County Court of Victoria considered an appeal concerning a dispute between the parties. The precise nature of the underlying dispute is not detailed in the provided text, but the appeal itself was brought by way of a Notice of Appeal filed on 25 July 2014, which was subsequently amended on 31 March 2015.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the decision under appeal should be upheld or overturned. This required the Court to examine the grounds of appeal as presented by the appellant and to assess whether any errors of law or fact had occurred in the original determination of the dispute.

Judge Kelly dismissed the Notice of Appeal. The reasoning behind this dismissal is not elaborated upon in the provided text, but the outcome signifies that the Court found no sufficient grounds to interfere with the decision that was the subject of the appeal. Consequently, the original decision stands.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The Notice of Appeal filed 25 July 2014 (as amended on 31 March 2015) is 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.