FATHER LIABLE FOR PAYING CHILD SUPPORT APPEALS THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE COURT ERRED IN CALCULATING THE APPLICANT’S CHILD SUPPORT INCOME AMOUNT
Levitt v Canton & Anor [2020] FCCA 2335 (26 August 2020)
This case involves a procedure relating to child support wherein the applicant appeals the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for erring in the computation of the applicant’s child support income amount.
Facts:
The applicant appeals pursuant to s.44AAA of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 from a first review decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
The applicant and first respondent are the parents of one child who was born in 2014. The applicant is the liable parent to pay child support. The child is in the primary care of the first respondent.
Applicant contends in his oral submissions, that AAT’s decision demonstrated error. He submits that AAT erred in the way in which it calculated the applicant’s child support income amount.
The second respondent submits that the appeal should be dismissed as no error of law has been demonstrated nor is apparent in the decision of the AAT.
Issue: Should the appeal be allowed on the ground that the AAT’s error of computing the applicant’s child support income amount?
Law:
- s.44AAA (1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975- If the Tribunal as constituted for the purposes of a proceeding is a child support first review does not consist of or include a presidential member, a party to the proceeding may appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, on a question of law, from any decisions of the Tribunal in that proceeding.
Analysis:
Although the AAT erred in the way in which it calculated the applicant’s child support income amount, the errors that it made are errors of fact. They are not errors of law. Whilst the AAT may have misapprehended the position, the factual error does not lead to relief in this case.
No question of law is raised by the applicant’s notice of appeal. Nor is any question of law apparent on the face of the AAT’s decision. Whilst the court identified that the AAT has made some errors in the way in which it is has approached the application before it, those errors are factual errors which do not lead to a grant of relief in these proceedings.
Conclusion: In those circumstances, the notice of appeal must be dismissed with costs.
