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
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
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...
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