AB v CD [2020] QCAT 295

Date: 14 July 2020
Tribunal: Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal
Tribunal Member: Adjudicator Alan Walsh
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) Sections: s 25
Rights Considered: Right to privacy and reputation
Other Legislation: Australian Constitution, Chapter III, s 109; Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), ss 2B, 15AB, 15C, Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), Schedule 1; Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth), ss 3, 4, 104, 113, 113A, 116; Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), ss 32, 39; Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), ss 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 32, 43, 164; Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth), ss 3, 47, 51; Service and Execution of Process Regulations 2018 (Cth), s 6
Keywords: Children and Families

The applicant made an application for a minor debt for the collection and recovery of a child support overpayment by one parent to another. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal briefly considered the right to privacy and reputation (section 25 Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)) and issued a non-publication order so that the parties involved would remain anonymous.

This case concerned an application for a minor debt for the collection and recovery of an assessed child support overpayment by one parent to another. Neither parent resided in Queensland, however, the applicant’s agent had its place of business of the Gold Coast. Thus, the matter was heard before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The Tribunal noted that section 3(2) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection Act) 1988 (Cth) required the legislation to be administered in a manner that was ‘consistent’ to attain its objects, but had limited interference with the ‘privacy of persons’: at [2]. In doing so, the Tribunal highlighted section 25 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) which protects the right to privacy and reputation, and noted that although the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) ‘does not have extra-territorial effect beyond the State of Queensland,’ the Tribunal would protect the privacy of the parties by referring to them anonymously and by making a non-publication order ‘with respect to their identities and addresses’: at [3]-[4].

It was ultimately held that the Tribunal did ‘not have jurisdiction to hear this matter having regard to sections 104, 113, and 113A’ of the Child Support (Registration and Collection Act) 1988 (Cth) and the application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: at [75].

Visit the judgement: AB v CD [2020] QCAT 295