Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
No fault divorce - the end of the blame game
The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, which passed into law on 25 June 2020, will introduce "no fault" divorce in England and Wales for the first time. This article looks at what it...
New Cafcass guidance on working with children during COVID-19
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) has published guidance on working with children during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The guidance sets out arrangements for...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
Online event: An update on recovery in the civil, family courts & tribunals
HM Courts and Tribunals Service has announced that it is holding an online event to discuss its recovery plan for the civil, family courts and tribunals, which was published on 9 November 2020...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
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