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
The need for proportionality and the ‘Covid impact’
Simon Wilkinson, Parklane PlowdenThe Covid-19 pandemic has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. Within the courts and tribunals service there has been a plethora of guidance since March 2020 which...
Local authority input into private law proceedings, part II
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingsLucy Logan Green, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingThis article considers the interplay between private and public law proceedings, focusing on the law relating...
Time for change (II)
Lisa Parkinson, Family mediation trainer, co-founder and a Vice-President of the Family Mediators AssociationThe family law community needs to respond to the urgent call for change from the...
How Can I Wed Thee? – Let Me Change the Ways: the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper on ‘Weddings’ Law (2020)
Professor Chris Barton, A Vice-President of the Family Mediators Association, Academic Door Tenant, Regent Chambers, Stoke-on-TrentThis article considers the Paper's 91 Consultation Questions...
Consultation on the proposed transfer of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of costs to the Legal Aid Agency
The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on the proposed transfer from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service to the Legal Aid Agency of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of...
View all articles
Authors

MAINTENANCE:Karoonian v CMEC; Gibbons v CMEC [2012] EWCA Civ 1379

Sep 29, 2018, 18:31 PM
Slug : maintenance-karoonian-v-cmec-gibbons-v-cmec-2012-ewca-civ-1379
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 6, 2012, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 100809

(Court of Appeal, Ward, Richards, Patten LJJ, 30 October 2012)

Conjoined appeals were brought by non-resident parents who had all been committed to prison although on suspended terms for failure to meet their maintenance obligations as assessed by the CMEC and the CSA. The appellants claimed that s 39A of the Child Support Act 1991 was not compliant with the Human Rights Act 1998 and did not afford them the right to a fair trial as guaranteed by Art 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950.

Default maintenance assessments had been made in respect of both appellants but neither had sought to have that assessment revised.

The appeals would be allowed and the orders for commitment set aside. A procedure properly applying s 39A of the CSA 1991 would be fully compliant with European Convention requirements, however, due to deficiencies in the process in respect of the two appellants their rights to a fair trial had not been protected.

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