Whittaker v Child Support Registrar [2002] FCA 1429

Whittaker v Child Support Registrar [2002] FCA 1429

The application is dismissed because the applicant's challenges lack substance: there is no statutory or common law requirement for his consent to the assessment, High Court authority (Lucen v Lessels) forecloses the judicial power argument, failure to give notice under s 34 does not invalidate the assessment given...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Mark Alan Whittaker; Respondent: The Child Support Registrar
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for Writ of Certiorari and Other Relief / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Child Support Assessment, Judicial Power, Procedural Fairness, Validity of Administrative Decisions
Administrative Law Family Law Constitutional Law Child Support Assessment Judicial Power Procedural Fairness Validity of Administrative Decisions

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Alan Whittaker

Applicant

The Child Support Registrar

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Writ of Certiorari and Other Relief / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Registrar validly accepted and assessed a child support application under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989
  2. 2 Whether lack of notice under s 34 invalidated the assessment
  3. 3 Whether the provisions require exercise of judicial power of the Commonwealth

Ratio Decidendi

The application is dismissed because the applicant's challenges lack substance: there is no statutory or common law requirement for his consent to the assessment, High Court authority (Lucen v Lessels) forecloses the judicial power argument, failure to give notice under s 34 does not invalidate the assessment given s 72, and the applicant has waived or acquiesced in any procedural irregularity by his conduct and failure to raise objections at an earlier opportunity.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application, including reserved costs.