VXQB v Child Support Registrar [2021] FCA 48

VXQB v Child Support Registrar [2021] FCA 48

The application for extension of time was refused because none of the applicant’s contentions disclosed an arguable error of law, so granting an extension would be futile. Additionally, the draft notice of appeal did not state a recognisable question of law, and the objection to competency was upheld.

Parties
Applicant: VXQB; First Respondent: Child Support Registrar; Second Respondent: BQJQ
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal and Objection to Competency (federal Court Appeal Under S 44 Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (cth)) / Application for Extension of Time and Objection to Competency Heard and Determined
Outcome
Application dismissed; objection to competency of proposed appeal upheld
Legal Topics
Child Support, Extension of Time, Appeals on Question of Law, Administrative Appeals Tribunal Reviews, Care Percentage Determinations
Family Law Administrative Law Child Support Extension of Time Appeals on Question of Law Administrative Appeals Tribunal Reviews Care Percentage Determinations

Case Brief

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 2 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

VXQB

Applicant

Child Support Registrar

First Respondent

BQJQ

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Appeal and Objection to Competency (federal Court Appeal Under S 44 Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (cth)) / Application for Extension of Time and Objection to Competency Heard and Determined

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether in the interests of justice to grant an extension of time to appeal
  2. 2 Whether draft notice of appeal discloses a recognisable question of law
  3. 3 Merit of the contentions raised as questions of law

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time was refused because none of the applicant’s contentions disclosed an arguable error of law, so granting an extension would be futile. Additionally, the draft notice of appeal did not state a recognisable question of law, and the objection to competency was upheld.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; objection to competency of proposed appeal upheld

Orders

  • The objection to competency of the proposed appeal is upheld.
  • The application for an extension of time is dismissed.