swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Child Support - From: 2004 To: 2004
This page lists 14 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.
(Un-named) (CS) [2004] UKSSCSC CH - 296 - 2003
29 Jan 2004
SSCS
Child Support
[ Bailii ]
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Kehoe [2004] EWCA Civ 225; Times, 10 March 2004; Gazette, 01 April 2004; [2004] QB 1378
5 Mar 2004
CA
The Hon Mr Justice Latham Lord Justice Ward Lord Justice Keene
Child Support, Human Rights
The claimant had applied to the Child Support Agncy for maintenance. They failed utterly to obtain payment, and she complained now that she was denied the opportunity by the 1991 Act to take court proceedings herself. Held: The denial of access to the courts under section 8 did not engage her civil rights. The Act transferred to the Agency responsibility for making assessments for child maintenance. The right for the claimant to apply for judicial review would be an insufficient remedy. "To take away the jurisdiction of the court to determine what is essentially a class of civil action and entrust it to organs dependent on the Government is indissociable from a danger of arbitrary power, has serious consequences for the fundamental principles of law and so cannot be overlooked by the court." but "Her right to a fair trial is certainly restricted but not so restricted that the very essence of her right of access to the court is impaired." The judge had failed to consider whether the steps taken were proportional. Properly implemented, the Act would be a fair balance of rights.
Human Rights Act 1998 6.1 - Child Support Act 1991 8
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Denson v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Another [2004] EWCA Civ 462
15 Mar 2004
CA
Child Support
[ Bailii ]
(Un-named) CSC7/03-04(T) [2004] CSC7/03-04(T)
25 Mar 2004
NISSCS
Northern Ireland, Child Support
[ Bailii ]
(Un-named) CSC7/03-04(T) [2003] NISSCSC CSC7/03-04(T)
25 Mar 2004
NISSCS
Northern Ireland, Child Support
[ Bailii ]
Sutherland, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2004] EWHC 800 (Admin)
25 Mar 2004
Admn
Child Support
Appeal against liability order
Child Support Act 1991
[ Bailii ]
(Un-named); SSCS 26-Mar-2004 - [2004] UKSSCSC CSCS - 16 - 2003
Qazi, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2004] EWHC 1331 (Admin)
14 Jun 2004
Admn
Child Support
[ Bailii ]
Farley v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Admn 12-Jul-2004 - [2004] EWHC 1655 (Admin); Times, 23 July 2004
(Un-named) (CS) [2004] UKSSCSC CCS - 1371 - 2003
22 Jul 2004
SSCS
Child Support
[ Bailii ]
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v M [2004] EWCA Civ 1343; [2005] 2 WLR 740; [2006] QB 380
15 Oct 2004
CA
Kennedy, Sedley, Neuberger LJJ
Child Support, Discrimination, Benefits
M had challenged the Child Support Regulations saying that they discriminated against her. She was the liable parent, and in a monogomoud lesbian relationship. As such she said that she was treated worse than she would have been since the Regulations did not that her relationship as constituting a family. The Secretary of State appealed against the finding that the regulations were discriminatory. The second claimant had challenged a similar result in her claim for Housing Benefits. Held: The court upheld the Commissioner's decision.
Lord Justice Sedley considered that the applicant's previous family life (i.e. the relationship between herself, her former husband and her children) was not within the ambit of Article 8. As for her relationship with her partner, he read the ECHR decision in Estevez to establish that the question whether same-sex relationships fall within Article 8 is a matter of domestic law. Several domestic precedents treated same-sex couples as no different from heterosexual couples in certain contexts, and the applicant's relationship constituted family life for the purposes of the case. Any discrimination against the applicant on the grounds of her sexual orientation called for compelling and proportionate justification. The child support scheme impinged in some significant degree on the family life of the applicant and her partner, bringing their situation within the ambit of Article 8. As the scheme discriminated against the applicant on grounds of her sexual orientation, Article 14 was also engaged. He rejected the argument that the scheme came within the ambit of the applicant's private life, since the scheme did not set out to recognise the applicant's sexual orientation. Regarding Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, he considered it unnecessary to decide if it too was engaged, although he doubted that it was. He found that the Government had not provided any acceptable justification for the discrimination against the applicant. He rejected the arguments advanced on behalf of the Secretary of State about the difficulty of correcting a problem that was but one instance of a distinction applied throughout the wider social security system, observing that there was no doctrine of justification by the logistics of reform. As for a remedy, he considered that the appropriate course was to disapply (in effect delete) the definition in the regulations of an unmarried couple so as to eliminate the requirement of heterosexuality.
Child Support Act 1991 - Child Support (Maintenance Assessments and Special Cases) Regulations 1992 1(2) - Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 - European Convention on Human Rights 8
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Langley v Bradford Metropolitan District Council and Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2004] EWCA (Civ) 1343; Times, 11 November 2004
15 Oct 2004
CA
Lord Justice Kennedy Lord Justice Sedley Lord Justice Neuberger
Child Support, Discrimination
It was discriminatory to treat differently homosexual and heterosexual couples when considering liability for child support payments. Sedley LJ: "The broad effect of the material provisions is to allocate the financial responsibility of separated parents for the maintenance of their children by pooling the absent parent's income and outgoings with those of his or her new partner if, but only if, that partner is of the opposite sex. For same-sex couples this means that the one who is an absent parent is assessed as if living alone, with generally disadvantageous consequences." and "Putting it schematically, the child support scheme sets out to respect family life by making allowance for the joint expenses of an absent parent's new household. It is this, without regard to discrimination, which brings the measure within the ambit of article 8. If then the scheme discriminates between one family unit and another on the ground of its members' sexuality, article 14 too becomes engaged. Here, by treating their finances as wholly separate when they are not, and by consequently assessing M's child support payment at a higher sum that if theirs was a heterosexual partnership, the scheme manifests a different level of respect for their family life."
Neuberger LJ: "the reduction in liability effected by regulation 11 is accorded for the purpose of ensuring that that absent parent's new family is not so deprived of money that it is significantly detrimentally affected by the liability of the absent parent to pay child support. To my mind, it follows from this that M has made good her case that the relevant provision, of which she does not have the benefit because she is in a same sex, rather than a heterosexual, relationship, was enacted out of respect for family life, the family life in question being that of the absent parent and his/her new partner."
1 Citers
Smith v Smith and Another [2004] EWCA Civ 1318; Times, 02 November 2004
19 Oct 2004
CA
Ward LJ, Ward LJ, Sir Martin Nourse
Child Support
The father challenged a ruling that in calculating his liability to pay child support he was not entitled first to deduct, as a self-employed person, all the allowances he might claim against income tax by way of capital allowances. Held: The legislation is sloppy, muddled and would lead to unjust and absurd results. Nevertheless the regulations were as contended by the father.
Child Support (Maintenance Assessments and Special Cases) Regulations 1992 - Child Support Act 1991 - Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1999 - Capital Allowances Act 1990 140 247 - Taxes Management Act 1970 8
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Pabari v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions-And-Nilesh Pabari [2004] EWCA Civ 1480; [2005] 1 All ER 287
10 Nov 2004
CA
Lord Justice Brooke Holman Mr Justice Holman Lord Justice Dyson The Vice President Of The Court Of Appeal (Civil Division)
Child Support
Housing Costs as part of child support assessment. The court considered the interpretation of the word 'necessary', saying that the Court must not qualify the word 'necessary' by reference to what might be regarded as reasonable. The word 'necessary' instead requires a high degree of exigency.
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
