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
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
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...
View all articles
Authors

CHILD SUPPORT: Giltinane v Child Support Agency, [2006] The Times, 7 April

Sep 29, 2018, 17:23 PM
Slug : giltinane-v-child-support-agency-2006-the-times-7-april
Meta Title : CHILD SUPPORT: Giltinane v Child Support Agency, [2006] The Times, 7 April
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL : (Family Division; Munby J; 9 March 2006) [2006] FLR (forthcoming)
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Mar 9, 2006, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 86327

(Family Division; Munby J; 9 March 2006) [2006] FLR (forthcoming)

There was a very short, non-extendable time limit for appeals against liability orders, the only method of appeal available being by way of case stated. However, where the liability order would otherwise result in a miscarriage of justice, the court had power to give permission to apply for judicial review out of time, and, if there was no other way to give a claimant the justice to which he was entitled, the court had the power to provide a remedy by way of judicial review. In the instant case, the Child Support Agency had misled justices by providing the wrong figures; the miscalculation of the liability had led to a clear miscarriage of justice.

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