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
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
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....
View all articles
Authors

CHILD SUPPORT: R (Davies) v Commissioners Office [2008] EWHC 334 (Admin)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:11 PM
Slug : r-davies-v-commissioners-office-2008-ewhc-334-admin
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Mar 5, 2008, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 87265

(Queen's Bench, Administrative Court; Black J; 5 March 2008)

The father appealed against the Child Support Agency's maintenance assessment. The Appeal Tribunal ordered the Secretary of State to send the father copies of all documents relating to him that were retained by the Agency. By the date of the hearing some, but not all, documents had been made available. The tribunal chairman decided that the missing documents could not have any effect on the maintenance calculations and proceeded with the appeal. The father challenged the Agency's deliberate decision not to obey the disclosure orders.

Once the Child Support Agency was seized of a claim that came within its remit, it was not open to the person required to pay child support to launch an inquiry into the method by which the claim had come to the Agency. The interest of the person required to pay child support was limited to the accuracy of the maintenance calculation. The role of the Tribunal was to check the agency's child support calculations. None of the undisclosed material held on file by the Agency would have been relevant to the appeal, and the Tribunal had been entitled to proceed without it. However, the Secretary of State should not have simply failed to comply with the disclosure order, but should rather have sought a variation of the disclosure order. The decision not to comply with the orders had been irrational.

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