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
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
Unequal chances? Ethnic disproportionality in child welfare and family justice
Many have experienced their own Black Lives Matter moment in the last 12 months, a sharp realisation of entrenched prejudices and inequalities that still exist in our society.In the family justice...
Changes to the law on Domestic Abuse
Official statistics (ONS (2016), March 2015 Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW)) show that around 2 million people suffer from some form of domestic abuse each year in the UK. In...
Managing costs in complex children cases
In November 2020 Spice Girl Mel B was in the news, despairing about how the legal costs of trying to relocate her daughter Madison from the US to England were likely to bankrupt her, leading to her...
View all articles
Authors

CHILD SUPPORT: R (Cart) v Child Maintenance Enforcement Commission [2009] EWHC 3052 (Admin)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:11 PM
Slug : r-cart-v-child-maintenance-enforcement-commission-2009-ewhc-3052-admin
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 1, 2009, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 87237

(Queen's Bench Division, Divisional Court; Laws LJ and Owen J; 1 December 2009)

The mother of the five children applied for variation of the child maintenance assessment. In error the Secretary of State did not notify the application to the father. When the father was given notice of the variation direction, he sought a revision, but was refused. His appeal was dismissed. His application to the Upper Tribunal for permission to appeal was granted on three grounds, but not on the ground of the Secretary of State's failure to give notice of the variation application. The father sought judicial review of the refusal to grant permission to appeal on this point.

The Upper Tribunal was, for relevant purposes, an alter ego of the High Court, and constituted an authoritative, impartial and independent judicial source for the interpretation and application of the relevant statutory texts. It was not amenable to judicial review, being at the apex of a new and comprehensive judicial structure.

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