Buluma v Child Support Agency

Background 1 On 6 July 2010, the applicant, Wilberforce Buluma, filed an application in this Court. Mr Buluma's application sought the following orders: 1. I am seeking a stay order suspending liability collection by Child Support Agency pending court outcome. 2. In the event Child Support Agency owes me money in overcharge as a result of its accounting fraud, my money is to be recovered including interest. 3. If Child Support Agency wont prove beyond reasonable doubt that it acted within appropriate legislation and procedural instructions and instead engaged in an act of fraud to defraud me, I am seeking $4,000,000 in damages for fraud and defamation under Section 5 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 for causing financial hardship, stress and time I've spent to peruse huge volumes of paperwork for the last 10 years to uncover fraud. 2 Mr Buluma supported his application with an affidavit which set out his dealings with the respondent, the Child Support Agency (the Agency) since 1994. The extensive correspondence which forms part of Mr Buluma's affidavit shows that Mr Buluma has over that time made a number of different complaints to the Agency as to the manner in which it has calculated his child support payments, and other matters. These complaints have included complaints that the Agency has used different taxable incomes within the same child support period to assess his liability; miscalculated Mr Buluma's liability on numerous occasions, resulting in inflation and penalisation of overdue amounts and late payments; and intentionally inflated the amount owed in order to defraud Mr Buluma. 3 Mr Buluma also complained that the Agency wrongly intercepted tax refunds to recover past liabilities and sent defamatory communications to Mr Buluma's employers and his bank. Mr Buluma also said that there had been non-compliance by the Agency with an order issued by the Family Court to suspend payment of child support during a period when Mr Buluma's former wife was overseas. 4 Mr Buluma also went on to complain that he had objected to the child support assessments on a number of occasions, but those objections were disallowed by the Child Support Registrar. 5 I have set out above the relief which Mr Buluma claims. In summary, it appears that Mr Buluma is claiming a repayment of monies which he says he was fraudulently overcharged, and damages for fraud and defamation. 6 The respondent filed a conditional appearance on the basis that the jurisdiction of the Court had not been regularly invoked by Mr Buluma's application. It was contended by the respondent that insofar as Mr Buluma's application was to be treated as an application under s 5 of the of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (ADJR Act), Mr Buluma had not identified as a respondent, any person who had the power to make a decision under either the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) ("the Assessment Act") or the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth) ("the Collection Act"). 7 On 6 September 2010, the respondent filed a notice of motion to have Mr Buluma's claim set aside pursuant to O 9 r 7 of the Federal Court Rules (the Rules). In the alternative, the respondent sought summary judgment pursuant to s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). The respondent also relied, in the alternative, on O 54 r 7(1) and O 20 r 5(1) of the Rules, each of which provides for the stay or dismissal of proceedings. 8 The respondent also complained that, insofar as the application was to be treated as an application under s 5 of the ADJR Act, it was out of time and should be dismissed. 9 The respondent said that it would consent to Mr Buluma joining the Child Support Registrar, being the person invested with the relevant decision-making power under the Acts, as a party to the proceeding. The Court gave Mr Buluma an opportunity to amend his application to join the decision-maker and to identify more precisely the decisions which he impugned and the facts and matters on which he relied to demonstrate that he had a claim under s 5 of the ADJR Act, and also to apply for an extension of time for the making of an application under s 5 of the ADJR Act. 10 Mr Buluma duly filed an application for an extension of time but declined the initiation to amend the application to join the Child Support Registrar as a party to the application. Mr Buluma filed an affidavit dated 20 September 2010, in support of that application.