Click the case name for better results:

SL v Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission: UTAA 11 Dec 2009

The mother and father had been married and had a child. They separated, and she claimed income support. The father was assessed to be liable to Child Support, but he was assessed to a nil contribution. He found work and the assessment was increased. When there was a brief reconciliation, he applied for cancellation of … Continue reading SL v Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission: UTAA 11 Dec 2009

Department of Social Security v Butler: CA 11 Aug 1995

The Secretary of State was not entitled to a Mareva injunction preventing the disposal of assets against a parent pending the issue of a child support assessment. The court refused a freezing order:- (Morritt LJ) ‘The Child Support Act introduced a wholly new framework for the assessment and collection of the sums required for the … Continue reading Department of Social Security v Butler: CA 11 Aug 1995

Chief Adjudication Officer v Wolke; Remelien v Secretary of State for Social Security: HL 13 Nov 1997

The claimant was an EC national who had become resident here but was not seeking work, since she cared for her children. The Secretary of State said that since she was not seeking work, she was not entitled to remain and should make arrangements to leave the UK. Held: The letter asking a claimant to … Continue reading Chief Adjudication Officer v Wolke; Remelien v Secretary of State for Social Security: HL 13 Nov 1997

Corner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: CA 1 Mar 2005

The applicant sought to bring an action to challenge new rules on approval of export credit guarantees. The company was non-profit and founded to support investigation of bribery. It had applied for a protected costs order to support the application, and now appealed its refusal. Held: The court restated the practice on the making of … Continue reading Corner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: CA 1 Mar 2005

B (A Minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions: HL 23 Feb 2000

Prosecution to prove absence of genuine belief To convict a defendant under the 1960 Act, the prosecution had the burden of proving the absence of a genuine belief in the defendant’s mind that the victim was 14 or over. The Act itself said nothing about any mental element, so the assumption must be that mens … Continue reading B (A Minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions: HL 23 Feb 2000