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
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Family Law Awards winners announced in virtual awards ceremony
The winners of the Family Law Awards 2020 were announced at 4pm during a much-anticipated virtual awards ceremony. Over the past ten years, the Family Law Awards has recognised the leading players in...
Behaviour-based divorces still merit close consideration
Some recent cases illustrate the evidential and procedural issues involved in dealing with proofs on the merits of divorce, which are worth considering even though most cases may conclude on a...
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