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...
Latest articles
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
View all articles

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 :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from