Misplaced Pages

Luton v Lessels

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Luton v Lessels
CourtHigh Court of Australia
Full case name Luton v Lessels & Anor
Decided11 April 2002
Citation(2002) 210 CLR 333
Case history
Prior actionnone
Subsequent actionnone
Court membership
Judges sittingGleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Kirby, Hayne and Callinan JJ
Case opinions
(6:0) The scheme established by the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 and the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) for the collection and payment of money otherwise payable to or receivable by the recipient is not a tax (per Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Kirby, Hayne and Callinan JJ) (6:0) The Acts do not confer on the Child Support Agency judicial power and are not offensive to the doctrine of separation of powers (per Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Kirby, Hayne and Callinan JJ)

Luton v Lessels (2002) 210 CLR 333 is a High Court of Australia case that affirms previous High Court definitions of a tax.

Facts

The Commonwealth established a Child Support scheme where a non-custodial parent was required to pay an amount of their income to the custodial parent to assist in the costs of raising their children. This scheme was established by the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 and the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989.

Luton, a non-custodial parent challenged the scheme on the grounds that the payment was a form of tax because it was collected by the government, and section 55 of the constitution mandates that tax legislation must deal with matters of taxation only.

Luton also claimed the Child Support Scheme conferred judicial powers on non-judicial officers. Thus, the legislation was contrary to Chapter III of the Constitution because it offended the doctrine of separation of powers.

Decision

The High Court unanimously held that the payment of child support was not a tax. Although the government collected the money, it was merely facilitating a necessary transfer of money between private citizens. It provided a mechanism for this exchange of an existing private obligation.

See also

References

  • Winterton, G. et al. Australian federal constitutional law: commentary and materials, 1999. LBC Information Services, Sydney.
Categories: