All your resources at your fingertips.Learn More
(Family Division; Charles J; 13 July 2010)
The mother was appealing the dismissal of an application made under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 for a lump sum payment for the benefit of her daughter to meet, or to contribute to, (a) the costs of the Schedule 1 claim and (b) proceedings under the Children Act 1989 relating to where the child should be educated and where she should live (s 8 proceedings).
The issue was whether s. 8(1) and (2) Child Support Act 1991 precluded the court's jurisdiction to make an order for periodical payments to cover the costs allowance sought as a CSA assessment was below the maximum assessment and a review of the assessment was not yet completed. Whether the court had the power to order ‘top up' periodical payments before the Commission decided if to make a maximum assessment.
In making a lump sum order, Charles J drew a distinction between two statutory regimes. The ‘equality of arms' point could apply in s 8 proceedings just as in Schedule 1. Applying a purposive and literal approach to the Children Act 1989, Sched 1, para 9, did not have the effect that if and when the court had no jurisdiction to make a periodical payments order it also had no jurisdiction to make a lump sum order other than as a part of the overall disposal of all aspects of an existing Sched 1 claim on a final basis.
Family Law Reports are relied upon by the judiciary, barristers and solicitors and the reports are cited daily in court and in judgments.
They contain verbatim case reports of every important Family Division, Court of Appeal, House of Lords and European courts case, and also includes practice directions, covering the whole range of family law, public and private child law.
Order your copy today and get the Autumn Supplement