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.
Times 21-May-2003, Gazette 03-Jul-2003,  2 FLR 578,  EWHC 1021 (Admin)
Child Support Act 1991 8(3), Human Rights Act 1998 7
England and Wales
Cited – Regina (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 – Philis v Greece ECHR 27-Aug-1991
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses . .
Appeal from – 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 . .
At first instance – Kehoe, 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 . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 February 2021; Ref: scu.182459