Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

getting CSA to rule under Section 116 (98E & 98R for a application from the payer)

Add Topic
Hey guys,

Fairgo mentioned in one of his earlier posts about getting CSA to rule under 116 (98E & 98R), which gets me directly to court.

I have read the relevant legislation and obviously as I'm no lawyer, I'm having trouble grasping what it means in laymen's terms.

Fairgo, if you are around, can you explain it to me mate?

I think I have an understanding of what it means but I'd just like a few other opinions, just to make sure I'm on the right track.

Fairgo also mentioned that obviously CSA will not want to make a ruling under this section as they don't want you to go to court, which could effectively get them over ruled, is this correct?

I'm in the final stages of drafting my appeal letter ( i have amassed a number of appeals to p**s CSA off) and was wondering is there any way in my letter I could word it so that I can ask CSA to make a ruling under that section if they deny all my other appeals for a COA?

I'm thinking that if I have it in writing and I ask for a ruling under that section and they don't/refuse/ignore me, I can use it against them and then go straight to court?

Am I thinking right? Or am I on the wrong track?
In a nut shell C$A do not have to make a decision and can say that the situation is too complicated to deal with.

However I can only see them making such a ruling in favour of the payee so they can access a court quickly. One of the legislative changes that occurred in 2007 was to restrict access to the courts especially from payers who were reducing their liability through the court. We were told that the SSAT would be better.

Anyway I think it's worth a try. As long as you can make your argument, why it is not in C$A's best interests to rules under 98E & 98R in your case, sound reasonable, you might get a sympathetic Magistrate. They can only say no.

However if C$A rules under 98E & 98R then you have your ticket to court!
I understand your first part Fairgo but can you explain what you have written here, sorry mate but when I read this it seems to not make sense to me.. its a little confusing..


"Anyway I think it's worth a try. As long as you can make your argument, why it is not in C$A's best interests to rules under 98E & 98R in your case, sound reasonable, you might get a sympathetic Magistrate."

They can only say no. However if C$A rules under 98E & 98R then you have your ticket to court!"


In your first line you say I need an argument that its not in CSA best interests but in the second line you say if they do, I can go to court, which is what I want..So why would I need a good argument to say its not in CSA's best interests??
I'm saying that in the case C$A just ignores your correspondence instead of ruling that your circumstances are too complicated (98E/98R). There is a good chance this is how they will act. They don't want to give you a ticket to go straight to court as they know you, as a payer, might end up better off than under their decision making framework.

If this is how C$A act you will have to convince the court to accept your s.116 application without the 98E/98R ruling from C$A.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets