Child support — appeal — departure order — school fees — unjust and inequitable — Austin, Nichols & Co Inc v Stichting Lodestar [2007] NZSC 103, [2008] 2 NZLR 141 — Re M [1992] NZFLR 660 — Re M [1993] NZFLR 74 — Lyon v Wilcocks and Commissioner of inland Revenue [1994] NZFLR 634 — Clasper v Clasper [1995] 13 FRNZ 604 — Ewing v Ewing [1993] NZFLR 849 — Hilgendorf [1993] NZFLR 177 — C v D [2000] FRNZ 121, [2001] NZFLR 433. This was an appeal against a departure order on a child support agreement. The parties were the parents of two children. The Commissioner of Inland Revenue issued an assessment reducing what the respondent had to pay. The respondent was originally required to pay $15,243.60 for each child. As a result of the assessment there was a reduction for the respondent to pay $3,243 in respect of the youngest child. The review officers found that the appellant had the potential to earn more compared to the income she was assessed on originally. The appellant's ground for appeal was that there was no agreement for private schooling, the fees were not a term of the parenting order and as a result of COVID her employment faced setbacks. She also argued that the reviewer was biased therefore the decision was unjust and unrealistic. She submitted that the original amount the respondent had to pay for each child was fair. It was noted that the respondent was mistaken in thinking that the appellant earned more. The Court found that the review officer did not consider the appellant's ability to meet the cost of private school education. The Court disagreed with the review officer as there was evidence that the parties would be harshly affected in granting a departure order. The Court determined that the departure order should not have been granted therefore the appeal was successful. Judgment Date: 26 May 2023 * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *