ABL22 v Child Support Registrar

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court's records.

Note: This copy of the Court's Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. On 10 July 2025 by the applicant, Mr Hopkins filed of a Notice of Appeal (Child Support) ("Notice of Appeal"). The applicant requires leave, in accordance with his undertakings in June 2004, to bring proceedings under s 72Q of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth) ("the Act"), to appeal a decision of a delegate of the respondent, the Child Support Registrar ("the Registrar"), to issue a Departure Prohibition Order ("DPO") on 24 August 2017.
2. On the 3 June 2004 and 4 June 2004, the applicant gave an undertaking to the Honourable Warnick J in the Family Court of Australia at Brisbane. Relevantly, the applicant's undertaking from 4 June 2004 provides that the applicant:

will not bring proceedings pursuant to the Child Support Act or any other associated legislation without first obtaining leave of the court pursuant to my undertaking tendered 3 June 2004.

1. Pursuant to order 2 made by this Court on 10 July 2025, the question of leave will be determined on the papers without an oral hearing.
2. On 10 July the applicant was afforded the opportunity to file written submissions in reply to the Registrar. The applicant has not availed himself of this opportunity.
3. The Court has taken into account the allegations and material in the two affidavits filed by the applicant on 31 July 2025 and 10 September 2025 respectively, and the affidavit with an annexure filed on behalf of the Registrar. The Court has also received a litigation chronology and written submission from the Registrar.

1. The applicant has a significant litigious history. The matters in which the applicant specifically sought leave in relation to child support proceedings include:

(1) Hopkins & Walker & Anor [2013] FamCA 616;

(2) Hopkins & Shorley & Anor (SSAT Appeal) [2014] FCCA 158;

(3) DXX16 v Child Support Registrar [2017] FCCA 1540;

(4) ABL22 v Child Support Registrar [2022] FedCFamC2G 491; and

(5) Hopkins & Shorley [2024] FedCFamC1A 221.

1. A litigation chronology adopted by this Court from the Registrar is as follows:

Applicant gave undertaking to, amongst other matters, not bring any proceedings pursuant to the Child Support Act or associated legislation

Final parenting orders made by Justice Warnick, expressly on the premise of the undertakings given by the applicant on 3 and 4 June 2004

Applicant filed an Application for Final Orders, together with an Application for Interim Orders in identical terms. The applicant sought parenting orders and to "vary or discharge the undertaking as is appropriate" on a final basis.

Justice Jordan dismissed the applicant's Application for Final Orders filed on 7 November 2005

Applicant filed an application seeking final and interim orders in the Federal Magistrates Court

Applicant filed an amended Initiating Application seeking orders "best described as declarations in relation to the conduct of the second respondent' and an order "revoking all previous reviews conducted by the Child Support Agency under Part 6A of the Child Support Assessment Act 1989 and an order that restrained the CSA from the collection and enforcement of any CSA debt"

Justice Tree refused to grant the applicant leave to commence the Amended Initiating Application filed 21 September 2012

(Child Support) in the Federal Circuit Court against the decision of the then Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) dated 20 May 2013

The applicant filed a further Notice of Appeal (Child Support) in the Federal Circuit Court against the decision of the then SSAT

Judge Coates refused to grant leave for the applicant to file the Notices of Appeal filed on 24 June and 5 July 2013

The applicant filed an application in the Federal Circuit Court for an extension of time to seek review of decisions made by the Child Support Registrar under the Administrative Decisions

The applicant filed an Application in a Case seeking injunctions against the Child Support Registrar to prevent collection of his child support debt

Judge Cassidy refused to grant the applicant leave to proceed with his application

The applicant filed an Initiating Application in the Federal Circuit Court seeking final orders, amongst other matters, to be excused from the

The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal (Child Support) in the Federal Circuit Court at Rockhampton against the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal dated 27 February 2020

The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal (Child Support) seeking, amongst other matters, that the Departure Prohibition Order made on 24 August 2017 be revoked

applicant leave to proceed with his 5 January 2022 application

The application filed on 16 July 2019 was dismissed following the applicant filing a Notice of Discontinuance on 26 July 2022

applicant leave to proceed with his 23 March 2020 application

The applicant filed an application (without seeking leave to do so) seeking orders, amongst other matters, that the mother owes the applicant a $26,853.50 child support debt

Judge Turner dismisses the 28 February 2024 application

leave to appeal the order of Judge Turner made 10 June 2024

Justice Schonell refused to grant the applicant leave to proceed with his 5 November 2024 application

1. The applicant's affidavit dated 31 July 2025 identified that the Registrar issued a DPO on 24 August 2017. The applicant claimed he has received no other material relation to the DPO from the Registrar.
2. The applicant deposed that he sent a letter dated 19 February 2024 to the Registrar and that a further letter was sent to the Registrar on 15 December 2025. No response has been received by the applicant.
3. The applicant identified the Registrars decision and statement of reasons in the DPO notice.
4. The applicant stated that Warnick J made orders on 29 July 2004 and accepted the applicant's undertakings dated 4 June 2004 and 3 June 2004. The applicant asserted that the orders and undertaking dated 3 June 2004 ceased to function in 2013. The applicant claimed that only the undertaking dated 4 June 2004 is still in effect.
5. The applicant noted that the orders and undertakings were related to parenting proceedings and that there were no child support proceedings on foot at the time of the undertakings or orders. The applicant deposed that the parenting proceedings focused on the mother's mental health and identified that this application does not involve the mother. The applicant asserted that this application is about whether the DPO was correctly made.
6. The applicant identified s 72S, s 72Q and s 72D of the Act.
7. The applicant alleged that the Registrar did not refer to the s 72D(2) matters in the DPO notice.
8. The applicant submitted that there is no material to indicate what the Registrar had regard to or if it had any at all when considering the applicant's capacity to repay the debt. The applicant contended that the Registrar knew his financial situation as the Registrar was garnishing the applicant's Newstart and employers.
9. The applicant identified s 36 and s 63AA of the Act and asserted that the Registrar's reasons for refusing to accept the applicant's estimate of income does not satisfy the statutory requirements.
10. The applicant further provided:

Did the Registrar follow the correct procedures in refusing to accept an Estimate if Income?

Has the DPO been properly made, has proper regard been made to sec 72D(2) matters.

1. In the applicant's affidavit dated 10 September 2025, identified that the affidavit was in response to the Registrar's documents. The applicant stated that the debt owed by the applicant according to the Registrar is $8,318.41.00.
2. The applicant submitted that the mother owes the applicant a debt of approximately $26,853.50 from current assessments which the applicant asserts is more than the debt owed to the mother at the time the Registrar made the DPO in 2017. The applicant noted that the Registrar and Child Support Agency ("CSA") have refused the collect the debt owed to the applicant by the mother as it is a private debt.
3. The applicant deposed that he has to make an application under s 25 of the Act to the Registrar and CSA to collect the debt owed by the mother despite never electing for the debt to private collect under s 24A of the Act.
4. The applicant identified s 28, s 38, s 38A, s 38B and s 39A of the Act.
5. The applicant deposed that the Registrar refused to record the applicant's change in circumstances on 17 December 2017 and amend assessment within 28 days as required by s 36 of the Act. The applicant noted that he began receiving Newstart.
6. The applicant contended that the Registrar was never entitled to refuse to accept the applicant's Estimate of Income on 17 December 2012 for the reasons stated in the CSA notes and by doing so the Registrar is non-compliant with s 63AA of the Act.
7. The applicant identified that he was assessed on an income of $89,000 and $84,000 while his income for the year ending 30 June 2013 was $7,169 and $9,917 for the year ending 30 June 2014.
8. The applicant submitted that he has never had the capacity to repay the debts and that had the Registrar complied with the requirements of the Act none of the Court applications from 24 June 2013 to now would have occurred.
9. The applicant restated that the undertakings were part of parenting orders made by Warnick J and that all except the undertaking dated 4 June 2004 ceased to operate on 3 February 2013. The applicant provided that Tree J continued the undertaking dated 4 June 2004 as a welfare order for the benefit of his youngest child while the child continued his education till 2013, and for the mental health of the mother.
10. The applicant stated that 21 years after the making of the orders the mother's mental health issues are still preventing or obstructing any application made by him to the Courts. The father contended that there has never been any update on the mother's mental health, treatment or progress.
11. The applicant submitted that the Court dismissing an enforcement application by the applicant for approximately $26,850 owed by the mother where the applicant was unable to join the Court electronically for reasons beyond his control is misuse and abuse of the undertaking. The applicant stated that the debt is still to be paid by the mother.
12. The applicant submitted that these proceedings do not involve the mother yet the undertakings are still being used to block/restrict his access to the Court's.

1. The Registrar identified that the applicant is the parent of two children born in 1993 and 1995. The Registrar deposed that the applicant has been engaged in litigation relating to the children and child support for approximately 30 years with the administrative assessment of child support ending in 2011 and in 2013, when the children turned 18 respectively.
2. The Registrar identified that on 22 August 2017 made a DPO to commence on 24 August 2017, prohibiting the applicating from departing Australia. At such time as the DPO was made the applicant had an outstanding child support liability within the meaning of s 72E of the Act. The applicant was notified of the delegates decision by mail on 24 August 2017.
3. The Registrar identified that that Tonkin J refused the grant of leave and dismissed the applicant's application to revoke the DPO filed on 5 January 2022, on the basis that the applicant was misconceived.
4. The Registrar identified the orders sought by the applicant pursuant to the Notice of Appeal filed on 10 July 2025.
5. The Registrar noted that the applicant requires leave as the proceedings fall within the scope of undertakings given in 2004 not to bring any proceedings pursuant to the Child Support Act or any other associated legislation, without the leave of the Court.
6. The Registrar referred to the observations of Tree J in Hopkins & Walker and Anor [2013] FamCA 616, in respect of the 2004 undertakings given by the applicant:

[37] It seems to me that the purpose of the father's undertakings - which succeeded - was to persuade the Court that, if it was prepared to order ongoing contact between the children and the father, that could not, and would not, facilitate further conflict in this Court between the parties, without the Court's express permission first obtained. As I read the reasons of Warnick J of 29 July 2004, the undertakings were a central platform of his Honour's reasoning towards ordering that the father have contact with [Mr C].

[38] Against that background, in order to obtain a grant of leave, the father would have to demonstrate that the circumstances are such that it is just to allow him to depart from the position he adopted before Warnick J.

1. Pursuant to Hopkins & Shorley & Anor (SSAT Appeal) [2014] FCCA 158 [46]-[51] the Registrar identified the relevant factors to be addressed by the applicant when seeking leave to proceed.
2. The Registrar noted to Dixon v Child Support Registrar [2017] FCCA 1540 and Butler v Child Support Registrar [2022] FedCFamC2G 491 where the applicant failed to address these factors and leave to proceed was refused.
3. The Registrar identified that the applicant sought to be released from the 2004 undertakings in 2019 before Baumann J but discontinued proceedings during the period the judgment was reserved.
4. The Registrar submitted that the applicant's affidavit in support filed on 30 July 2025, does not address any of the factors for leave identified by Coates J in Hopkins & Shorley & Anor (SSAT Appeal) [2014] FCCA 158 in a meaningful way. Owing to such the Registrar contends that the applicant's application for leave to appeal, and leave should therefore be dismissed. The Registrar further submitted that the applicant's substantive appeal is without any reasonable prospects of success. The Court accepts these submissions.
5. The Registrar referred s 72D of the Act and identified that s 72Q(1) of the Act provides that person aggrieved by the making of a DPO may appeal to this Court against the making of the order. The Registrar noted that s 72S of the Act empowers a Court hearing an appeal under s 72Q of the Act to either set aside the order or dismiss the appeal.
6. The Registrar identified the question of law and grounds of appeal provided by the applicant on the Notice of Appeal filed on 10 July 2025 noting that the applicant's affidavit dated 30 July 2025, repeats such information and raises whether the DPO was properly made.
7. The Registrar referred to an incorrect belief held by applicant's that the Registrar was required to provide a statement of reasons when notifying him of the decision to make a DPO. It was submitted that there is no obligation under the Act for the Registrar to provide reasons when making a decision under s 72D of the Act, nor is there a common law obligation for a decision-maker to provide reasons for an administrative decision generally. Owing to such, the Registrar contended that it was not required to set out the matters in s 72D(2) of the Act in the letter to the applicant dated 24 August 2017. The Court accepts these submissions.
8. The Registrar submitted that the applicant's grounds relating to the requirement to provide a statement of reasons does not reveal legal error. The Registrar accepts these submissions.
9. With reference to the decision of the Honourable Emmett J in Jones v Child Support Registrar [2007] FCA 1732, the Registrar submitted that the applicant bears the onus of establishing that the DPO was not validly made. The Registrar maintained that the applicant has not discharged this onus as no evidence has been filed which would bring into question whether reasonable grounds existed for the Registrar to be satisfied, or for the Registrar to hold the requisite belief that, at the time of the decision to issue the DPO s 72D of the Act did not apply. The Court accepts these submissions.
10. The Registrar submitted that that the applicant cannot demonstrate that the DPO made on 24 August 2017 was invalidly made. The Court accepts these submissions.
11. The orders sought by the Registrar are for the application for leave to be dismissed and the applicant pay the Registrars fixed costs in accordance with the scale under Schedule 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth).
12. In so far that the applicant seeks leave to commence proceedings against the Registrar despite undertakings given in 2004, that application is refused on the basis that it is an abuse of process seeking to re-litigate matters in order to further perpetuate meritless litigation and is contrary to the purpose of the undertaking.
13. Leave to commence these proceedings is refused.

I certify that the preceding forty-eight (48) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Street.