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

BENEFITS: Humphreys v Commissioner for HM Revenue and Customs [2010] EWCA Civ 56

Oct 27, 2018, 06:02 AM
Slug : humphreys-v-commissioner-for-hm-revenue-and-customs-2010-ewca-civ-56
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 3, 2010, 09:27 AM
Article ID : 86135

(Court of Appeal; President of Queen's Bench Division, Richards and Goldring LJJ)

The parents had separated but shared the care of children for 3 and 4 days a week respectively. One of the otherwise eligible parents was denied child tax credit on the basis that the parent was a 'minority carer'. The issue in the case was whether a minority carer rule was indirectly discriminatory on grounds of sex.

The court reviewed the decision in Hockenjos and held that the Commissioners had established sufficient justification for adhering to a system of single payment of child tax credit.

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