Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Appealing SSAT on an error of law

We had a few discussions here defining an "error of law" to appeal on through court…

Now this section is from the case Crabbe v Crabbe:

20.Errors of law come in other guises, they could be made because facts are mistaken, or facts not taken into account, or irrelevant facts are taken into account, or there is bias or there is a lack of reasons given or something of that nature. In Tasman & Tisdale [2010] FMCAfam

85. In particular, I reiterate an administrative tribunal exceeds its powers and thus commits a jurisdictional error, which is correctable on appeal, in respect of a question of law, if it:
  •   fails to construe properly the legislative provisions applicable;
  •   identifies the wrong issues or asks itself the wrong questions;
  •   ignores relevant material or relies on irrelevant material;
  •   fails to accord procedural fairness to the party before it;
  •   makes an erroneous finding of such a magnitude that it goes to the very jurisdiction which it purports to exercise rendering its decision perverse or unreasonable or otherwise offending logic.
86. In summary, an appeal on a question of law:
is not a review on the merits or a rehearing;
as such, an appeal on a question of law is not one in which findings of fact, per se, can be called into question;

however, bearing in mind the statutory intent implicit in Part VIII of the Collection Act and the purpose of the Federal Magistrates Court itself, in dealing with SSAT appeals, the court should not be unduly legalistic or pedantic, particularly where the appellant concerned is self-represented;
in reviewing a decision of the SSAT for error, the court should not examine the decision in question with an eye keenly attuned to the perception of error.

This is just one example of many others described in this particular case, so have a look at AusLll.

Does anyone have any other interesting cases of appeals due to errors of law? I could do with some examples. Thank you.

Last edit: by Secretary SPCA

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. It sheds a new complexion on a widening definition of "Errors of law". If I find a spare minute I will add the case references to cases of interest.

Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
 
You can find the case here:

http://www.fmc.gov.au/judge/html/new.html

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on the site (Look for the Avatars).   Be mindful what you post in the public areas. 
Tell me the meaning of the following words:-  

As written in the CSA bible

FAIR,
JUST  and
EQUITABLE

for both parents.

That is an error of law on its own.

The case is attached, as the link Monte provided will eventually be overwritten as newer judgements turn up. Thanks for the URL Monte.

Attachment
Crabbe & Crabbe and Child Support Registrar (SSAT Appeal) [2012] FMCAfam205

Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
 
Hi I have attached the reason. I think in my case the Magistrate decided the incorrect facts were not relevant although I would disagree. I am thinking of going through the whole process again as my situation has changed and I think I can avoid the problems I had with the SSAT and court appeal.<br /><br />
Attachment

Last edit: by Fairgo

If this is wrong, please delete.

My view is that the CSA, SSAT, & Courts are not qualified accountants.

 SECTION 5
Applications for review of decisions

 
 (1) A person who is aggrieved by a decision to which this Act applies that is made after the commencement of this Act may apply to the Federal Court or the Federal Magistrates Court for an order of review in respect of the decision on any one or more of the following grounds:

 (a) that a breach of the rules of natural justice occurred in connection with the making of the decision;

 (b) that procedures that were required by law to be observed in connection with the making of the decision were not observed;

 that the person who purported to make the decision did not have jurisdiction to make the decision;

 (d) that the decision was not authorized by the enactment in pursuance of which it was purported to be made;

 (e) that the making of the decision was an improper exercise of the power conferred by the enactment in pursuance of which it was purported to be made;

 (f) that the decision involved an error of law, whether or not the error appears on the record of the decision;

 (g) that the decision was induced or affected by fraud;

 (h) that there was no evidence or other material to justify the making of the decision;

 (j) that the decision was otherwise contrary to law.

 (2) The reference in paragraph (1)(e) to an improper exercise of a power shall be construed as including a reference to:

 (a) taking an irrelevant consideration into account in the exercise of a power;

 (b) failing to take a relevant consideration into account in the exercise of a power;

 an exercise of a power for a purpose other than a purpose for which the power is conferred;

 (d) an exercise of a discretionary power in bad faith;

 (e) an exercise of a personal discretionary power at the direction or behest of another person;

 (f) an exercise of a discretionary power in accordance with a rule or policy without regard to the merits of the particular case;

 (g) an exercise of a power that is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have so exercised the power;

 (h) an exercise of a power in such a way that the result of the exercise of the power is uncertain; and

 (j) any other exercise of a power in a way that constitutes abuse of the power.

 (3) The ground specified in paragraph (1)(h) shall not be taken to be made out unless:

 (a) the person who made the decision was required by law to reach that decision only if a particular matter was established, and there was no evidence or other material (including facts of which he or she was entitled to take notice) from which he or she could reasonably be satisfied that the matter was established; or

 (b) the person who made the decision based the decision on the existence of a particular fact, and that fact did not exist.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets