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 maintenance of children by their parents. There is no provision for the enforcement of any maintenance assessment except by the Secretary of State and his methods of enforcement are limited in the way I have mentioned. In my judgment the detailed provisions contained in the Act of 1991 which I have described show clearly that Parliament intended that all questions concerning the enforcement of maintenance assessments should be determined exclusively by the Secretary of State, the Magistrates’ Court or the County Court. The civil jurisdiction of the High Court is, in my view, necessarily excluded.’
Evans LJ: ‘The following observations may be made on these statutory provisions. (1) The Act of 1991 together with regulations made under it provide a detailed and apparently comprehensive code for the collection of payments due under maintenance assessments and the enforcement of liability orders made on the application of the Secretary of State. (2) The only method provided for enforced collection before a liability order is made is a deduction from earnings order made by the Secretary of State himself under section 31. (3) Although section 1(3) provides for a duty which arises when the maintenance assessment is made, this duty is not expressed as a civil debt. Mr Crampin accepts that the duty could not be directly enforced by action in any civil court, or by any means other than as provided in the Act. (4) There is no provision for precautionary or Mareva-style relief.’
Morritt LJ: ‘As I have indicated the Secretary of State claims in respect of the statutory right correlative with the obligation expressed in section 1(3) of the Act of 1991. But that obligation and right is not a civil debt in any ordinary sense. First, the obligation may only be enforced by the Secretary of State and not by any other person who may be stated to be the payee in the maintenance assessment. Secondly, the Secretary of State’s powers of enforcement do not enable him to sue for the arrears in the ordinary way. In the first instance his choice lies between a deduction of earnings order directed to the employer or an application to justices for a liability order. In my judgment, neither of those rights is such as would entitle this court, consistently with the decision in The Veracruz I [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 353 to grant Mareva relief.
The Child Support Act 1991 introduced a wholly new framework for the assessment and collection of the sums required for the maintenance of children by their parents. There is no provision for the enforcement of any maintenance assessment except by the Secretary of State and his methods of enforcement are limited in the way I have mentioned. It seems to me that it would be inconsistent with the Act as a whole in general and with section 33 in particular if the Secretary of State were to be at liberty to apply for Mareva injunctions in the High Court. If the conditions in section 33(1) are satisfied then Parliament has clearly laid down that the Secretary of State should proceed first in the magistrates’ court and then in the county court. If those conditions are not satisfied then Parliament has clearly ordained that the Secretary of State should not be entitled to enforce the maintenance assessment by court process at all.
No doubt clear words or a necessary implication are required to exclude the jurisdiction of the court. The suggested exclusion in this case is of the High Court’s ordinary civil jurisdiction which includes the power to grant injunctions. In my judgment, the detailed provisions contained in the Act of 1991 which I have described show clearly that Parliament intended that all questions concerning the enforcement of maintenance assessments should be determined exclusively by the Secretary of State, the magistrates’ court or the county court. The civil jurisdiction of the High Court is, in my view, necessarily excluded. I agree with Evans LJ that the judge was right and that this application should be dismissed.’
Simon Brown LJ: ‘For my part I believe that the argument fails at both stages albeit for what in the last analysis may be thought essentially the selfsame reason. Put shortly my conclusions are, first, that Mareva relief is only obtainable where there is already available to the applicant a cause of action properly so called, viz. a right to litigate or arbitrate an existing monetary claim, and, secondly, that the Act of 1991 affords to the Secretary of State no such cause of action, and indeed no rights at all save only those expressly conferred upon him by section 4(2) to arrange in certain circumstances either for the ‘collection’ of maintenance payable under an assessment or for the ‘enforcement’ of the obligation to pay such maintenance, in each instance as thereafter expressly provided for in sections 29 et seq. of the Act of 1991.’

Judges:

Morritt LJ, Evans LJ, Simon Brown LJ

Citations:

Ind Summary 14-Aug-1995, Times 11-Aug-1995, [1995] 1 WLR 1528

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 37, Child Support Act 1991

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSecretary of State for Work and Pensions v Kehoe CA 5-Mar-2004
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 . .
CitedKehoe, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 14-Jul-2005
The applicant contended that the 1991 Act infringed her human rights in denying her access to court to obtain maintenance for her children.
Held: The applicant had no substantive right to take part in the enforcement process in domestic law . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Child Support

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.79908

Cook v Plummer: CA 9 Apr 2008

Application for permission to appeal and for permission to amend his grounds of appeal in relation to a discretionary decision acceding to an application for a common-law stay on the grounds of forum non conveniens.

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 484

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 Sch 1 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Child Support, International

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.267899

EB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and CW: UTAA 21 Oct 2019

Child support – calculation of gross weekly income – change from historic to current income – basis of calculation of income from self-employment – not a freestanding calculation based on any evidence available in respect of effective date.

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 321 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Child Support

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.651657

P (Child), Re (Child: Financial Provision): CA 24 Jun 2003

The father was a very wealthy Iranian, and the mother also had capital. She sought an assessment under the 1991 Act of the amount he should be asked to pay. The assessment came to andpound;152 per week, but he was paying andpound;1,200 a month voluntarily. An order under the 1989 Act could not be made without there first being in place an agreement between the parents. The judge had made an order on the mother’s application for capital provision and for child maintenance which was to reduce on the child’s seventh birthday on the basis that a nanny would no longer be required.

Judges:

Thorpe LJ, May LJ, Bodey J

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 837, [2003] 2 FLR 865

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Child Support Act 1991, Children Act 1989 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRadmacher v Granatino CA 2-Jul-2009
Husband and wife, neither English, had married in England. Beforehand they had signed a prenuptial agreement in Germany agreeing that neither should claim against the other on divorce. The wife appealed against an order to pay a lump sum to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Child Support

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.184077

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Roach: CA 20 Dec 2006

The court considered the reduction of state benefits payable to a mother asking the Child Support Agencey not to pursue a claim against the father where there has been a history of domestic violence. The mother said she was frightened of retribution from the father. The tribunal had found her fears exaggerated, but the Commissioner had allowed her appeal.
Held: The Commissioners reasons for departing from the tribunal’s findings were insupportable. The test for ‘undue distress’ could not be subjective.

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1746, Times 05-Jan-2007

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Child Support Act 1991 46

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedTote Bookmakers Ltd v Development and Property Holding Co. Ltd. 1985
Peter Gibson J defined the phrase undue hardship as ‘hardship . . not warranted by the circumstances’. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Child Support, Benefits

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.247490

Re B (Children): CA 5 Jul 2012

The father sought leave to appeal against a decision that the mother and their daughter were not habitually resident here, saying that she was not entitled to apply for child maintenance.

Judges:

Thorpe, Rimer, Patten LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1082

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Child Support

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463703

Davies v Welch: Admn 4 Nov 2010

The applicant sought the committal of the respondent for contempt. The defendant, a solicitor had acted for the claimant’s wife in ancillary relief proceedings. He complained that documents sent to her under implied undertakings of confidentiality within those proceedings had been sent to the Child Support Agency. The defendant admitted the act, saying that it was unwitting and had apologised.
Held: The information could have been (but was not) lawfully demanded by the Agency, and subsequent changes in legislation would mean that the defendant’s behaviour would not now be a contempt. Had she applied for leave, the court’s almost inevitable decision would have been for disclosure, and ‘this is plainly not a case calling for the committal order sought by Mr Davies. Indeed, in my judgment, it calls for no order at all, subject to consideration of the issue of costs. Mrs Welch acted in contempt of court through an oversight; it was an oversight which should not have occurred, given her professional knowledge and responsibilities, but the breach was not a serious one. This was a committed family solicitor who acted in good faith and for purposes which she considered to be entirely proper.’

Judges:

Richards LJ, Cranston J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 3034 (Admin), [2011] Fam Law 136, [2011] 1 FLR 1241

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Child Support Act 1991 49B, Family Proceedings Rules 10.21A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedGelber v Griffin FD 22-Nov-2006
Complaint was made that a party had disclosed confidential material received through disclosure to a third party.
Held: There was an implied duty of confidence arising in the disclosure process. . .
CitedAllan v Clibbery (1) CA 30-Jan-2002
Save in cases involving children and ancillary and other situations requiring it, cases in the family division were not inherently private. The appellant failed to obtain an order that details of an action under the section should not be disclosed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court, Family, Child Support

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.427010

Gentle and Another, Regina (on the application of) v Prime Minister and Others: CA 12 Dec 2006

Application for judicial review of the refusal by the government to hold an independent inquiry into the circumstances which led to the invasion of Iraq.

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1689, [2007] HRLR 10, [2007] QB 689, [2007] 2 WLR 195

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits, Child Support

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.247352

TR v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and PR (CSM): UTAA 26 May 2020

Child Support – extent of jurisdiction under Regulation 8 of The Child Support (Ending Liability in Existing Cases and Transition to New Calculation Rules) Regulations 2014 – closure of the 2003 scheme applications for child maintenance on 16 April 2015 – continued power for the Secretary of State to make the decisions that were made on 5 October 2016 refusing supersession in respect of decisions made in 2011 – appeal allowed – case remitted to First-tier Tribunal.

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 339 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Child Support

Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.659505

K, Regina (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: Admn 16 May 2003

Judges:

Wall J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1021 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Child Support Act 1991

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedKaplan v United Kingdom ECHR 14-Dec-1978
(Admissibility) The Secretary of State had, after preliminary procedures, served notices on an insurance company disallowing it from writing any new business, because its managing director the applicant, had been found not to be a fit and proper . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Child Support, Human Rights

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.450992

Green, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: Admn 19 Mar 2008

The separated parents of the child had agreed that the school fees paid by the father would be set off against his liability for child support. He now sought leave to bring judicial review of a decision to disregard them for that purpose.
Held: Whilst the climant had not in some espects exhausted the applicable appeals procedure, but permission was granted on the limited grounds that the respondent had failed to notify him of the mother’s objection to the setting off of the fees.

Judges:

Cranston J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 2000 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Child Support

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.372656

SM v Child Maintenance Enforcement Commission (CSM): UTAA 8 Dec 2010

Child support – jurisdiction

Judges:

Judge David Williams

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 435 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

ApprovedSL 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. . .

Cited by:

CitedBrough v Law CA 20-Oct-2011
The parties had a child when they were married. A maintenance support order was made after they separated. They were briefly reconciled, and the father said that during that period there was no ‘qualifying child’ within the Act, and that therefore . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Child Support

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433615

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Kehoe: CA 5 Mar 2004

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.

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Latham Lord Justice Ward Lord Justice Keene

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 225, Times 10-Mar-2004, Gazette 01-Apr-2004, [2004] QB 1378, [2004] UKHRR 443, [2004] 1 FCR 511, [2004] 2 WLR 1481, [2004] 1 FLR 1132

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998 6.1, Child Support Act 1991 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
CitedMatthews v Ministry of Defence HL 13-Feb-2003
The claimant sought damages against the Crown, having suffered asbestosis whilst in the armed forces. He challenged the denial to him of a right of action by the 1947 Act.
Held: Human rights law did not create civil rights, but rather voided . .
CitedRuna Begum v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (First Secretary of State intervening) HL 13-Feb-2003
The appellant challenged the procedure for reviewing a decision made as to the suitability of accomodation offered to her after the respondent had accepted her as being homeless. The procedure involved a review by an officer of the council, with an . .
CitedHuxley v Child Support Agency CA 2000
The court gave an extensive analysis of the workings of the Child Support Act: (Lady Justice Hale) ‘It is important to bear in mind that the child support scheme is not simply a method for the State to recoup part of its benefit expenditure from the . .
Appeal fromRegina (Kehoe) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions QBD 16-May-2003
The applicant had been obliged under statute to have her claim for maintenance for her child pursued thorugh the Child Support Agency. She said that through the delay and otherwise, her claim had been lost.
Held: The statute debarred the . .
CitedManby v Scott 1663
Since a husband owed it to the community to sustain himself, he was under the inevitable compulsion to sustain his other self, his wife, who was ‘bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh, and no man did ever hate his own flesh so far as not to preserve . .
CitedBazeley v Forder 1868
A wife’s agency of necessity for her husband extended to cover necessities for the children. . .
CitedGolder v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Feb-1975
G was a prisoner who was refused permission by the Home Secretary to consult a solicitor with a view to bringing libel proceedings against a prison officer. The court construed article 6 of ECHR, which provides that ‘in the determination of his . .
CitedKonig v Federal Republic of Germany ECHR 28-Jun-1978
The reasonableness of the duration of proceedings must be assessed according to the circumstances of each case, including its complexity, the applicant’s conduct and the manner in which the administrative and judicial authorities dealt with the . .
CitedJames and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Feb-1986
The claimants challenged the 1967 Act, saying that it deprived them of their property rights when lessees were given the power to purchase the freehold reversion.
Held: Article 1 (P1-1) in substance guarantees the right of property. Allowing a . .
CitedZ And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-May-2001
Four children complained that, for years before they were taken into care by the local authority, its social services department was well aware that they were living in filthy conditions and suffering ‘appalling’ neglect in the home of their . .
CitedIn Re C (A Minor: Contribution Notice) FD 13-May-1993
The father appealed against an order for contribution under the 1989 Act. It was argued that the contributing parent must simply cut his cloth acording to his means, and organise his life to follow first his duty to maintain his child.
Held: . .
CitedAirey v Ireland ECHR 9-Oct-1979
Family law proceedings such as judicial separation do give rise to civil rights. In complex cases article 6 might require some provision for legal assistance, the precise form being a matter for the member state. The Court reiterated the importance . .
CitedAshingdane v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-May-1985
The right of access to the courts is not absolute but may be subject to limitations. These are permitted by implication since the right of access ‘by its very nature calls for regulation by the State, regulation which may vary in time and place . .
CitedFayed v United Kingdom ECHR 6-Oct-1994
The Secretary of State had appointed inspectors to investigate and report on a company takeover. In their report, which was published, the inspectors made findings which were critical of and damaging to the applicants, who relied on the civil limb . .
CitedWilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) HL 10-Jul-2003
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent lender of its . .
CitedDepartment 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 . .
CitedH v Belgium ECHR 30-Nov-1987
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings
It is for . .
CitedBenthem v The Netherlands ECHR 23-Oct-1985
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient . .
CitedDenson, Regina (on the Application of) v Child Support Agency Admn 14-Feb-2002
The claimant challenged the validity of the 1991 Act under Human Rights law, particularly Article 1 of Protocol 1 and Article 8.
Held: ‘It is quite clear in my judgment that – putting the matter generally – both the statutory scheme and the . .
CitedPhillips v Peace 1996
The assessment of an absent parent’s liability under the Act is a mechanical one, achieved by the application of a formula. That assessment of liability does not reflect a number of potentially relevant factors, such as the availability to the . .
CitedDelaney v Delaney CA 22-May-1990
The court made an order for nominal periodical payments for children whose mother was receiving social security benefits. Nourse LJ said: ‘Whilst this court deprecates any notion that a former husband and extant father may slough off the tight skin . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromKehoe, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 14-Jul-2005
The applicant contended that the 1991 Act infringed her human rights in denying her access to court to obtain maintenance for her children.
Held: The applicant had no substantive right to take part in the enforcement process in domestic law . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Child Support, Human Rights

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.194122

Child Maintenance Enforcement Commission v Forrest: Admn 14 May 2010

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 1264 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedSaunders v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Dec-1996
(Grand Chamber) The subsequent use against a defendant in a prosecution, of evidence which had been obtained under compulsion in company insolvency procedures was a convention breach of Art 6. Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Child Support

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.416187

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 the liability order, saying that the fact that there had been a reconciliation meant that there was no ‘qualifying child’ and that the assessment had lapsed.
Held: M’s appeal succeeded against a decision of an Appeal Tribunal deciding that the Secretary of State had no power to continue a maintenance assessment affecting Mr Michael Brough as an absent parent, beyond 15 September 1999.
Levenson J concluded: ‘My starting point is the assumption that paragraph 16(1)(d) of Schedule 1 to the 1991 Act does in fact have a meaning and an application. I also adopt the view expressed by the Commissioner in paragraph 15 of CCS/4124/1997. The basis of the Commissioner’s reservations was the concern expressed in his paragraph 16 at the difficulties if the assessment continues in existence while the parents are living together. As I have pointed out above, the Commissioner in R(CS) 8/99 read into this concern a significance that went beyond the problems of the operation of the assessment during the reconciliation period, and went to the permanent cessation of the assessment.
It seems to me that the correct analysis is that paragraph 16(1)(b) is indeed about there no longer being a qualifying ‘child’, rather that being about the particular child no longer ‘qualifying’. This is one of the possible approaches suggested by Mr Scoon in CCS/4124/1997 and in my opinion it is the correct one. In the present case the child was still of the appropriate age and still with the parties during the period of reconciliation and therefore paragraph 16(1)(b) does not come into play.
However, it was the case that during the period of reconciliation the father was no longer an absent parent as defined in section 3(2) of the Act. Therefore, during the period of reconciliation there could be no duty on him under section 1(3) to make periodical payments pursuant to the maintenance assessment. If the reconciliation had lasted for at least six months, paragraph 16(1)(d) would have come into play. As the reconciliation does not last this long, and the child stayed with the mother, the father resumed the status of being an absent parent and the duty to make payments resumed (even though on the facts of the present case the amount of liability was nil until the 2003 decision).’

Judges:

Levenson J

Citations:

[2009] UKUT 270 (AAC), [2011] 1 FLR 322, [2010] Fam Law 1056

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Child Support Act 1991

Cited by:

Appeal fromBrough v Law CA 20-Oct-2011
The parties had a child when they were married. A maintenance support order was made after they separated. They were briefly reconciled, and the father said that during that period there was no ‘qualifying child’ within the Act, and that therefore . .
ApprovedSM v Child Maintenance Enforcement Commission (CSM) UTAA 8-Dec-2010
Child support – jurisdiction . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Child Support

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.410694

Brookes v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Another: CA 29 Apr 2010

The claimant father challenged enforcement by the Child Support Agency and the Commission of arrears they claimed of andpound;7,000 child support. He said they had failed to account for sums paid in cash by him direct to the mother. The sole claim now was as to the failure by the respondents when sending bailiffs to his house to consider the effect on the children living at the house.

Judges:

Ward, Hughes, Patten LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 420, [2010] Fam Law 910, [2010] 2 FLR 1038, [2010] 1 WLR 2448, [2010] 3 FCR 262

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Child Support Act 1991 82

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Child Support

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.414590

Child Support Agency, Regina (on the Application Of) v L: Admn 16 Jul 2008

Two appeals by way of case stated raising similar points about the powers of a Magistrates’ Court when asked to make a liability order under Section 33 of the Child Support Act 1991

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2193 (Admin), [2008] Fam Law 1086, (2008) 172 JPN 789, (2008) 172 JP 547, [2009] 1 FLR 31

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates, Child Support

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.278253

Regina v C (A Minor): CACD 5 Jul 2000

A judge who had ordered the trial of an eleven year old boy in the Crown Court but in doing so had kept in mind the judgement in the cases of T v United Kingdom and V v United Kingdom, and had made appropriate adjustments to the proceedings, had acted properly within his discretion.

Citations:

Times 05-Jul-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Child Support, Human Rights

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.85159

Regina (Kehoe) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: QBD 16 May 2003

The applicant had been obliged under statute to have her claim for maintenance for her child pursued thorugh the Child Support Agency. She said that through the delay and otherwise, her claim had been lost.
Held: The statute debarred the claimant pursuing her own remedies, and her human rights were therefore engaged. The inability to take a case to court would be an infringement, but she had two remedies. She could seek a judicial review of decisions of the Child Support Agency’s actions, and she had a right under section 7 of the 1998 Act for damages. Those powers cured the defect in the 1991 Act.

Judges:

Wall J

Citations:

Times 21-May-2003, Gazette 03-Jul-2003, [2003] 2 FLR 578, [2003] EWHC 1021 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Child Support Act 1991 8(3), Human Rights Act 1998 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromSecretary of State for Work and Pensions v Kehoe CA 5-Mar-2004
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 . .
At first instanceKehoe, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 14-Jul-2005
The applicant contended that the 1991 Act infringed her human rights in denying her access to court to obtain maintenance for her children.
Held: The applicant had no substantive right to take part in the enforcement process in domestic law . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Child Support, Human Rights, Administrative

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.182459

JM v United Kingdom: ECHR 21 Nov 2008

Citations:

37060/06, [2008] ECHR 1544

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights, Child Support (Maintenance Assessments and Special Cases) Regulations 1992 1(2)

Citing:

At Commissioner(Un-named) SSCS 1-Oct-2003
The mother had challenged payments required of her by way of child support. The Secretary of State now appealed.
Held: The appeal was rejected: ‘a gay relationship can be a family for the purpose of [A]rticle 8’. There was no reason, in the . .
At CASecretary of State for Work and Pensions v M CA 15-Oct-2004
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 . .

Cited by:

See AlsoJM v United Kingdom ECHR 28-Sep-2010
The applicant alleged that she had been the victim of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the assessment by the authorities of her financial liability under the regulations on child support. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Child Support

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278437

In re S (a child) and W (a child); KSJ v WRW: CA 5 Nov 2008

The mother sought leave to appeal against orders made for the financial support of her children. The parties had been involved in very protracted and bitter litigation.
Held: The appeals had no reasonable prospect of success and were dismissed.

Judges:

Wall LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 1207

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedTaylor v Lawrence CA 4-Feb-2002
A party sought to re-open a judgment on the Court of Appeal after it had been perfected. A case had been tried before a judge. One party had asked for a different judge to be appointed, after the judge disclosed that he had been a client of the firm . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Child Support

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.277535

RC v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: UTAA 15 Apr 2009

Judges:

Carnwath LJ SP, Jacobs J

Citations:

[2009] UKUT 62 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromCart and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Upper Tribunal and Others Admn 1-Dec-2009
The court was asked whether the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court, exercisable by way of judicial review, extends to such decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and the Upper Tribunal (UT) as are not amenable to any . .
At Upper TribunalCart, Regina (on The Application of) v The Upper Tribunal and Others CA 23-Jul-2010
The claimant had sought and been refused judicial review of a decision of the SIAC Upper Tribunal. The Upper Tribunals were designated as courts of superior record, and the court at first instance had said that SIACs specialist procedures and . .
At Upper TribunalCart v The Upper Tribunal SC 21-Jun-2011
Limitations to Judicial Reviw of Upper Tribunal
Three claimants sought to challenge decisions of various Upper Tribunals by way of judicial review. In each case the request for judicial review had been first refused on the basis that having been explicitly designated as higher courts, the proper . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Child Support

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.375652