Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
View all articles
Authors

CHILD SUPPORT: Child Support Agency v Forrest [2010] EWCA Civ

Sep 29, 2018, 17:53 PM
Slug : child-support-child-support-agency-v-forrest-2010-ewca-civ
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 24, 2010, 12:00 PM
Article ID : 90957

(Court of Appeal; Elias LJ and Keith J; 14 May 2010)

The father was charged with failing to comply with a request for information made by the Child Support Agency (CSA) under the Child Support Act 1991, s 14A, contrary to s 14A(3).The information was considered to be relevant for purposes of the CSA forming a view as to the payments to be made to the mother in respect of the child's maintenance.  The justices found that the father had a reasonable excuse, within s 14A(4) for not providing the requested information, namely that to do so would put the mother at risk of criminal prosecution. Section 15(7) of the Act, which provides that no-one is to be required to provide information tending to incriminate himself or their civil partner or spouse was not referred to by the justices.  The CSA appealed. 

Held that the defence of self-incrimination or protection from incrimination of another person was not in principle capable of constituting a defence of reasonable excuse within s 14A(4). The case was remitted to the justices to consider whether any other defence is applicable.

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