Child Support Registrar v CDJ22 [2023] FCA 1057

Child Support Registrar v CDJ22 [2023] FCA 1057

The Tribunal did not err in construing s 151B because 'year' in s 151B(1) bears its ordinary meaning of calendar year, while 'secondary school year' is a broad reference to the year of study undertaken by the child during that calendar year and is not confined to a period commencing on the first day of Term 1. The...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal on Questions of Law Under S 44(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (cth) Concerning Child Support Assessment / Application to the Federal Court From Caton and Osborne (child Support) [2022] AATA 2114
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['administrative Appeals Tribunal Appeal' "child Support Assessment Beyond Child's 18th Birthday" 'full Time Secondary Education' 'statutory Construction' 'mandatory Considerations' 'illogical or Irrational Findings']
['administrative Law' 'child Support'] ['administrative Appeals Tribunal Appeal' "child Support Assessment Beyond Child's 18th Birthday" 'full Time Secondary Education' 'statutory Construction' 'mandatory Considerations' 'illogical or Irrational Findings']

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal on Questions of Law Under S 44(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (cth) Concerning Child Support Assessment / Application to the Federal Court From Caton and Osborne (child Support) [2022] AATA 2114

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal erred in interpreting and applying s 151B of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) by deciding the First Respondent was eligible to apply to extend the administrative assessment past the child's 18th birthday." "Whether the Tribunal misconstrued or misapplied s 151C(2)(c) of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth), or failed to take into account a mandatory consideration, in concluding that the child was likely to be in full-time secondary education on the child's 18th birthday." "Whether the Tribunal's finding about full-time secondary education was illogical or irrational because of an absence of logical connection with the evidence before it."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not err in construing s 151B because 'year' in s 151B(1) bears its ordinary meaning of calendar year, while 'secondary school year' is a broad reference to the year of study undertaken by the child during that calendar year and is not confined to a period commencing on the first day of Term 1. The Tribunal was also entitled, on the evidence of enrolment, the year 12 step-up program, the VCE results and the parents' assertions, to find that the child was likely to be in full-time secondary education on the child's 18th birthday for the purpose of s 151C(2)(c). Requiring a formal school determination would deprive the word 'likely' of work to do. Each ground of review failed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' 'There be no order as to costs.']