Farley v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (No 2): CA 22 Jun 2005

The Court of Apeal had previously considered an appeal from the grant of a liability order made by magistrates. It had become clear that the order had been made without jurisdiction.
Held: The order must be set aside. The court had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the High Court hearing an appeal by way of case stated. Nevertheless, the issue had been an appropriate issue for the court. The appellant could apply for judicial review, the CA could sit as a court of first instance and reject that request, then the appellant could then appeal that and the Court of Appeal could then re-instate the order. Accepting limited undertakings for the lodging of documents, the court so acted.
Lord Woolf LCJ, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR
Times 30-Jun-2005, [2005] EWCA Civ 869
Child Support Act 1991
England and Wales
AppliedWestminster City Council v O’Reilly and others CA 1-Jul-2003
The defendant sought to appeal against a decision of the High Court on a case stated by the Magistrates.
Held: A decision by the High Court on an appeal by way of case stated from the Magistrates was final, and no further appeal lay to the . .
See AlsoFarley 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, . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromFarley 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 . .
CitedKenya Aid Programme v Sheffield City Council Admn 22-Jan-2013
The claimant challenged a decision that it was liable for non domestic rates in respect of some commercial units, on the basis that the use by the charity was not itself charitable.
Held: ‘there is no reason for limiting the ambit of the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 January 2021; Ref: scu.228268