GPW24 v GQZ24 [2025] FedCFamC2G 1026

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. This is a child support application that was filed on 29 August 2024 by the applicant father ("the father") seeking to challenge the decision of the Administration Appeals Tribunal ("the Tribunal"), in the Social Services and Child Support Division ("Child Support") dated 18 July 2024. The amended notice of appeal filed on 30 August 2024 raised 8 alleged questions of law and 9 grounds of alleged error. The Court has treated as having in evidence before it the Court books filed by the second respondent, the court book filed by the applicant and the applicant's affidavit filed on 3 June 2025. The first respondent ("the mother") filed a notice of appearance and submissions on 27 June 2025. The Court has also had regard to the submissions filed by the father and the mother as well as the terms of proposed consent orders signed only by the applicant and the second respondent ("the Registrar"). On 4 November 2024, the matter was fixed for a final hearing on 18 July 2025.
2. The father and the mother are the parents of 4 children, one of whom ceased being an eligible child from late 2022. The children were in the primary care of the mother when the child support case commenced on 3 March 2022. The mother applied for a change of assessment on 12 June 2022 on grounds that included the father's income, property and financial resources and earning capacity. The Tribunal's reasons identified the child support in place at the time of the mother's application and on 1 September 2022 Child Support made a decision that increased the assessment for the father. The father objected to that decision and the child support objections officer made a decision on 9 March 2023 partly allowing that objection and changing the assessment.
3. The father then sought a review of that decision before the Tribunal. There was a directions hearing on 9 May 2024 and the hearing was held on 20 June and 18 July 2024. The Tribunal identified the relevant issues and that the father runs a company B Pty Ltd which was central to the income, property and financial resources of the father. The Tribunal found that the father's income did not properly reflect his financial circumstances. The Tribunal made a finding as to an ATI of about $300,000 and that the circumstances constitute special circumstances such that the assessment is an unjust and inequitable determination of child support and found that the father's ATI should be set at $300,000 and that it was appropriate to increase the annual child support payable by the father. The Tribunal considered the proposed determination to be fair just and equitable balancing the needs and financial capacity of both parents. The Tribunal found that it was otherwise proper and that the determination should be made being just, equitable and otherwise proper.
4. The Tribunal made the following determination:

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides that:

For the period 12 June 2022 until 30 November 2024, the adjusted taxable income per annum for [GPW24] is varied to $300,000.

For the period 12 June 2022 to 11 June 2023, the annual rate of child support payable by [GPW24] is to be increased by the amount of $8,400 to recognise his contribution in relation to the children's special needs (medical and [extracurricular]) costs.

For the period 12 June 2022 to 30 November 2022, the annual rate of child support payable by [GPW24] is to be increased by the amount of $35,211 to recognise his contribution in relation to the child's ([X]'s) education costs.

For the period 1 December 2022 to 30 November 2023, the annual rate of child support payable by [GPW24] is to be increased by the amount of $16,500 to recognise his contribution in relation to the child's ([X]'s) education costs.

For the period 1 December 2023 to 30 November 2024, the amount of child support payable by [GPW24] is to be increased by the amount of $16,500 to recognise his contribution in relation to the child's ([X]'s) education costs.

1. Proposed consent orders, signed only by the father and the Registrar, were provided to the Court on 27 June 2025 and without hearing from the mother, were entered up in error by consent on the Commonwealth Court Portal. The mother indicated that she wished to be heard in respect of those orders and the purported consent orders were set aside and orders were made giving the mother an opportunity to be heard and also to attend an oral hearing if requested. The Registrar provided submissions on 30 June 2025 seeking to have the application for review dismissed but not seeking an oral hearing.
2. The relevant error conceded in the proposed short minutes, by the father and the Registrar, was identified as follows:

A. On 3 June 2025, the applicant filed the affidavit of [GPW24] affirmed on 3

June 2025 (applicant's affidavit). The second respondent accepts that the

materials filed the applicant on 24 June 2024 with the Administrative Appeals

Tribunal (Tribunal) was not considered by the Tribunal in circumstances

constituting a material denial of procedural fairness. Specifically, on 24 June 2024,

the applicant emailed further material to the Tribunal (applicant's affidavit page

166-891). On 1 August 2024, the Tribunal emailed the applicant and informed him

that the member had not considered the further material he filed on 24 June 2024

(applicant affidavit page 892). The second respondent accept that the Tribunal did

not engage with the further material at the resumed hearing on 18 July 2024. As it

was not until after the decision had been made that the Tribunal informed the

applicant that the material would not be considered, it is accepted by the second

respondent that the applicant was not on notice at the time of the resumed hearing

before the Tribunal that the materials filed on 24 June 2024 may not be

considered, and so did not have an opportunity to comment or make submissions

on the admissibility of that material. As such, the second respondent accepts that

the applicant was denied procedural fairness in respect of the decision to exclude

the material filed on 24 June 2024, which in turn meant that he was denied a real

and meaningful opportunity to participate in the resumed hearing on 18 July 2024.

The second respondent further accepts that the denial of procedural fairness was

material.

B. It is noted that the applicant has raised other grounds of review which he maintains are valid, but which are not necessary as the second respondent accepts that a material ground has been established.

1. The relevant error identified by the Registrar both enlivens this Court's jurisdiction and, on its face, identifies a relevant error that would require the application for review to succeed. The error is supported by the affidavit and exhibits of the father. The denial of procedural fairness by the failure to let the father be heard on the failure to have regard to his material emailed on 24 June 2024 to the Tribunal was not cured by the email sent on 1 August 2024, and the claim was made on the date of 18 July 2024, as the father was not given an opportunity to be heard on that refusal to consider the further material. As to materiality of the denial of procedural fairness, having looked at the nature of that material, the Court is not satisfied that it could not possibly have given rise to a different determination. The material to which the Tribunal did not have regard went to the financial position of the father through the construction company. Accordingly, the denial of procedural fairness is properly characterised as material constituting a jurisdictional error. In these circumstances, the father is entitled to the relief sought.
2. The submissions filed on behalf of the mother contend that procedural unfairness has not been established and that there is no material error justifying setting aside the decision. The submissions do not however engage with the errors identified by the Registrar that establish procedural unfairness and materiality that would require this court to set aside the decision. The Court accepts that the history of the matter and ongoing contentions are having an adverse toll and impact upon both the mother and the children. However, unfortunately, this does not enliven a discretionary basis upon which the application can be dismissed. It is unnecessary for the Court to deal with the other grounds.
3. The father has made out a jurisdiction error by the Tribunal and is entitled to the relief claimed. The Court is satisfised that the orders proposed by the father and Registrar must be made for the reasons identified in the note referred to above in the orders consented between the Registrar and the father.
4. It is for these reasons the Court makes the above orders.

I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex-Tempore Reasons for Judgment of Judge Street.