Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:	2009 53
Reported Number:	R(CS)5/09
File Number:	CCS 2585 2008
Appellant:	RB
Respondent:	Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission
Judge/Commissioner:	Judge E. Jacobs
Date Of Decision:	18/03/2009
Date Added:	17/04/2009
Main Category:	Child support
Main Subcategory:	other
Secondary Category:	Revisions, supersessions and reviews
Secondary Subcategory:	revision: general
Notes:	Tribunal jurisdiction – refusal to revise on application for variation – whether appealable The parent with care applied for a variation of the calculation of the non-resident parent’s liability for child support maintenance. The Secretary of State refused the variation and the parent with care appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. The tribunal allowed her appeal and agreed to a variation. The non-resident parent appealed. The Upper Tribunal judge allowed the appeal as he held the tribunal’s decision to be in error of law on a number of points. However the appeal also raised the issue as to whether a rejection of an application for a variation on preliminary consideration carried a right of appeal. Section 20 of the Child Support Act 1991, as amended, includes provision for a right of appeal against a decision not to supersede a decision on an application for a maintenance calculation, but not expressly against a decision not to revise, and in CSCS/7/2008 the Upper Tribunal judge had commented that there was no statutory right of appeal and that it was unsatisfactory that a right should have to be inferred under reference to intention. Held, allowing the appeal, that: 1. the essence of revision is that it corrects mistakes in the decision and so where the original decision stands unaffected the appeal lies against that decision within the terms of section 20(1)(a) (paragraph 11); 2. it is therefore unnecessary to infer a right to appeal against a decision not to revise as the legislation itself expressly provides for an appeal against the original decision, and that is sufficient to include the original decision when a decision has been made not to revise it (paragraph 16). The Judge remitted the case to a differently constituted tribunal for reconsideration.
Decision(s) to Download:	R(CS)_5 09 bv.doc