The defendant and his wife were separated. The Child Support Agency assessed the contributions he was to make, and eventually pursued him in the magistrates court for arrears. The defendant argued that whilst the Act did prevent the magistrates looking at the amounts set to be payable, it was able to look at the fundamental issue of liability.
Held: The wording had been changed to refer to ‘maintenance calculation’ save in the subsection. This suggested that the words ‘maintenance assessment’ here referred to the question of liability at all as well as its calculation. The appeal failed.
Judges:
Keith J
Citations:
[2004] EWHC 1655 (Admin), Times 23-Jul-2004
Links:
Statutes:
Child Support Act 1991 31 33(4)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Farley v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Another CA 25-Jan-2005
The Respondent had sought a liability order against the appellant, the non-resident parent in respect of child support maintenance arrears. The appellant had asked the magistrates to consider whether he was liable to pay child support maintenance, . .
At First Instance – Farley v Child Support Agency and Another; Farley v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (No. 2) HL 28-Jun-2006
Magistrates were wrong to think they had a discretion to look at the validity of a liability assessment under child support legislation. The Act gave the payer alternative avenues of appeal, and therefore the Act should be read as it stated and the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Child Support
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198864