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
The suspension, during lockdown, of prison visits for children: was it lawful?
Jake Richards, 9 Gough ChambersThis article argues that the suspension on prison visits during this period and the deficiency of measures to mitigate the impact of this on family life and to protect...
Re R (Children) (Control of Court Documents) [2021] EWCA Civ 162
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), King, Peter Jackson, Elisabeth Laing LJJ, 12 February 2021)Practice and Procedure – Disclosure of court documents – Sexual abuse findings –...
AG v VD [2021] EWFC 9
(Family Court, Cohen J, 04 February 2021) Financial Remedies – Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Part III – Russian divorceThe wife was awarded just under £6m...
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...
SCTS releases new simplified divorce and dissolution forms for Scotland
The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) has released new simplified divorce and dissolution forms of application. As a result of legislation repealing Council Regulation EC 2201/2003, the...
View all articles
Authors

CHILD SUPPORT: R (Cowling) v Child Support Commissioners Office [2008] EWHC 2306 (Admin)

Sep 29, 2018, 16:14 PM
Slug : r-cowling-v-child-support-commissioners-office-2008-ewhc-2306-admin
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 17, 2008, 04:21 AM
Article ID : 85089

(Queen's Bench Division; Administrative Court Underhill J; 17 July 2008)

The Child Support Commissioner refused the mother leave to appeal. The mother wrote to the Commissioner, seeking a copy of the file in order to confirm that all the documents that had been before the Appeal Tribunal had been seen by the Commissioner. The Commissioner informed the mother that he had seen the Tribunal's file, and asked the mother to identify any specific document that she thought might not have been sent to him, with an explanation for her belief that the document might be missing, and of the document's relevance to her grounds of appeal. The mother sought to challenge the refusal of leave to appeal, the decision not to set aside that refusal, and the decision not to provide her with a copy of the file.

There was no arguable error of law in any of the decisions concerned. It would be an abuse if a claimant who was out of time to challenge a primary decision were allowed to request a review of the primary decision, and then to challenge the upholding of the primary decision on review. The mother had been told, in terms, that the Commissioner had all the documents that had been before the Tribunal; it was not even arguably unreasonable for the Commissioner to ask the claimant to give some indication of the kinds of documents she thought might have been overlooked, given the costs and time involved in copying everything.

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