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: 1995 To: 1995
This page lists 6 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.
Department of Social Security v Butler [1995] 1 WLR 1528
1995
CA
Evans LJ, Morritt LJ, Simon Brown LJ
Child Support
The effect of the 1991 Act is that the court has no jurisdiction to grant an injunction to prevent an absent parent from disposing of his assets. A detailed consideration of the 1991 Act shows that it provides a detailed and comprehensive scheme and that the jurisdiction to grant an injunction has been excluded by necessary implication.
The duty to pay imposed by CSA section 1(3) does not create a civil debt because it can only be enforced by the Secretary of State and then only in the restricted ways identified in the CSA.
Simon Brown LJ said: "The Act of 1991 provides the most detailed and complete code for assessing and enforcing the financial responsibility of absent parents for their children; it amounts to a comprehensive legislative scheme. Had Parliament thought it necessary or desirable to embellish it by providing for Mareva relief, it could and would have done so; that, moreover, would plainly have been achieved by conferring such additional jurisdiction upon the county court."
Child Support Act 1991 1(3)
1 Citers
Regina v Secretary of State for Social Security Times, 30 January 1995
30 Jan 1995
FD
Child Support
A challenge to an allegation of the CSA's failure to consider a child's interests should be by way of an application for judicial review.
B v Secretary of State for Social Services Ind Summary, 13 February 1995
13 Feb 1995
FD
Child Support
No appeal to Justices for Secretary of State's failure to allow for children affected by Child Support order.
Department of Social Security v Butler Ind Summary, 14 August 1995; Times, 11 August 1995; [1995] 1 WLR 1528
11 Aug 1995
CA
Morritt LJ, Evans LJ, Simon Brown LJ
Child Support
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."
Supreme Court Act 1981 37 - Child Support Act 1991
1 Citers
(Un-named) [1995] UKSSCSC CF - 19 - 1994
3 Nov 1995
SSCS
Child Support
[ Bailii ]
E v C Times, 04 December 1995
4 Dec 1995
FD
Child Support
Magistrates to have CSA calculations when deciding maintenance for child.
