Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles
Authors

PATERNITY/ CHILD SUPPORT: Law v Inostroza Ahumada

Sep 29, 2018, 17:34 PM
Slug : EWCA1145
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 26, 2010, 11:32 AM
Article ID : 92239

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe, Stanley Burnton and Tomlinson LJJ; 6 October 2010)

CMEC sought to enforce child support arrears of £30,000. It obtained an enforcement order but when the arrears were still not paid, it obtained a charging order over the non-payer's property.  The non-payer did not appeal the assessment, the liability order or the charging order. A second set of enforcement proceedings were brought in respect of a subsequent period for about £13,000. The non-payer appealed, claiming he was not father. The child refused to take a DNA test, and the court found that the non-payer was the father, in absence of contradictory evidence. The non-payer neither appealed nor paid the child support and a liability order was made which he appealed. The order was set aside on a technicality and remitted to the justices and the amount was subsequently reduced. The non-payer commenced proceedings seeking a declaration that he was not the father, within s 55A of Family Law Act 1986. CMEC was joined as intervenor and gave an undertaking that it would not enforce the liability order save as to obtaining a second charging order. CMEC sought to strike the non-payer's petition out on the basis that there was no new evidence. The judge adjourned the matter, ordering a stay of enforcement until the next hearing. CMEC challenged the  judge's jurisdiction to make an order relating to separate enforcement proceedings.

Appeal allowed, the judge had no jurisdiction to control proceedings brought under a different statutory regime.

__________________________________________________________________

Family Law Reports

Family Law Reports are relied upon by the judiciary, barristers and solicitors and the reports are cited daily in court and in judgments.

They contain verbatim case reports of every important Family Division, Court of Appeal, House of Lords and European courts case, and also includes practice directions, covering the whole range of family law, public and private child law.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from