Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation


We did not recieve any response from the other party, are we supposed to?

Quick question (including a little vent)

SSAT informed us that the hearing will be on day x only a week before such date, which I think is really inappropriate. We did not revive any response from the other party, are we supposed to? We only received the files in regards to the matter from the CSA, which I think is missing bits and pieces also. We are "write only" costumers after receiving such wrongly documented files.
I also noticed, that the other party provided no formal response on any of our 2 objections. whatever has been said (if recorded correctly) by the other party was inconclusive to the matter. CSA, however, did rule in the favor of the other party. Weren't we supposed to receive such written objection response from the payee?
The payee requested the SSAT hearing to happen via telephone. Were we supposed to receive anything else apart from the letter of the SSAT notifying us of the hearing day and time, via telephone, 1 week before such date?
You should point out the incorrect information prior to attending SSAT since once you leave that process your only avenue of objection is on a point of law, not fact.
I agree that any factual information needs to be corrected.

On appeal there is a pleading of procedural fairness.  And if the decision is concluded in contary to the facts available, this can be an error of law.
EMW1965 - I have a reason from the court explaining that you cannot appeal on a point of fact even if you think it is wrong.
So what is recognized as a valid error of law in a common law country? If evidence exist and gets ignored, it would be, in my opinion an error of law. If the legislatiOn is not getting applied correctly, it would be an error of law also. So what is an error of law?
As you have said: If the legislatiOn is not getting applied correctly.
So I assume procedural fairness will be another… Can't see why not, if it plays such an important part in family law or in law as such?
Wasn't there a member who appealed with exactly such reason?
I tried playing that card (procedural fairness) but the court reason says no can do - I will dig it out and post on here when I have time.

At the time my appeal was the only one known by C$A in Australia.

It does seem very unfair that you cannot have a point of fact corrected in an appeal as it means that the C$A and SSAT can both decide upon what the evidence shall with no accountability.

I appealed a SSAT decision to the AAT also and as their evidence laws are same as a court, I got a great result.

The introduction of the SSAT and nearly 100% removal of the court from C$A decisions from 2007 is basically a put up shut up treatment by the profeminist policy/law makers and gave C$A more powers than a court.

That's fair enough, will go to the AAT as I already know we will be loosing the SSAt, after looking at other cases and horror stories…
Are you aware that access to the AAT is only limited to appealing matters of care and extension of time to object to a decision?
Yes it's a care dispute…

We got an Assesment in 2010 and advised CSA on regular care instead of 10 days the payee claimed. CSA said ok… Payee rang CSA telling them 0 care, even though she disputed herself within the same conversation, the records show. We never heard from CSA and weren't aware of 0 care. We only have a calendar for some dates and plane tickets for others. Payee asked for CSA collect late last year starting to withhold children to get the care below 52 nights for the year and claims arrears for 3 month of 1.8k. Now the arrears are based on 0 care, but we never had 0 care. Airplane records reach to December 10 which is 10month of 47 nights, within those she wants arrears paid based on nil care. We have some airplane records from 09 and 10 but kept a calendar. Care for 09 was 55 nights and 2010 was 53 nights. Problem is oct 10- oct 11 is only 50 nights, cause we had them in the beginning of the holidays in October 2010 and in the end of the holidays, due to a family function in 2011.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets