Edward Lamb instructed by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, has successfully defended a claim for Judicial Review in the Administrative Court.
The case, heard over 2 days, turned on the statutory interpretation of section 17 of the Child Support Act 1991. The non-resident parent had sought a supersession of his child maintenance calculation as far back as 2011 on the ground that it was incorrectly calculated. This request was refused by the Child Maintenance Service. The Claimant invited the Court to quash this decision on grounds of irrationality and unreasonableness and for his child maintenance liability to be reassessed.
The key question was whether section 17 provided a time limit for an application for the supersession of a maintenance calculation. Edward successfully argued that section 17 was a self-contained and self-defining statutory scheme, from which it was impermissible to read into a general discretion to extend time limits [see R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Abdi [1996] 1 WLR 298]. Moreover that if a purposeful reading of the relevant secondary and subordinate legislation (in this case the Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 1999) appeared to conflict with or fetter a right or discretion contained in its parent and primary statute, the primary statute should prevail. The argument that there was in any event a cause of action arising from general unfairness, was also dismissed [see Regina (Gallaher Group Ltd and others) v Competition and Markets Authority [2018] UKSC 25]. The Administrative Court further held the claim was out of time and therefore in breach of CPR r.54.5(1).
Edward was instructed by the Government Legal Department’s Constitutional and Social Care Public Law Team.
This week we examine a decision on the tension between open justice and protection of commercially sensitive information (we understand, by the way, that on 25th February the Court of Appeal will hear the appeal in PMC relating to the circumstances in which anonymity orders…
This week we look at two decisions, both of which will be of critical importance to practitioners in pursuance of contested litigation. In one, unusually, without prejudice correspondence was admissible in a case involving fundamental dishonesty; whilst in the other, the court reviewed the authorities…
Following a 5-day liability trial in the High Court in Manchester, the Claimant’s negligence and Human Rights Act claims were dismissed by HHJ Bird sitting as a Judge of the High Court. The Claimant was a Type 1 diabetic who suffered from a history of…
Deka Chambers: 5 Norwich Street, London EC4A 1DR