Farley v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

On an application for a liability order under section 33 of the Child Support Act 1991, the magistrates’ court decides only whether the payments claimed have become payable and remain unpaid. It cannot investigate whether the maintenance assessment or calculation was valid, or whether the person was liable to pay child support maintenance in the first place. Those issues must be pursued through the Act’s revision and appeal structure. A short delay in filing an appeal may be excused where the respondent suffers no prejudice and refusing an extension would prevent consideration of the merits, having regard to the overriding objective and the relevant procedural checklist.

The Child Support Agency obtained a liability order against Alec Farley for alleged child support arrears. The North Somerset Family Proceedings Court rejected his argument that it could determine whether he had been liable to pay child support maintenance and stated a case for the High Court.

Farley argued that section 33 of the Child Support Act 1991 permitted the magistrates’ court to examine his underlying liability and, where relevant, whether prescribed benefits had been claimed or paid to the parent with care. The High Court first considered the late filing of his appeal and then determined the scope of the magistrates’ jurisdiction.

1. Extension of time. The appellant’s notice was filed 13 days late. Applying the approach in Sayers v Clarke Walker [2002] 1 WLR 3095, the court considered the overriding objective and the checklist in rule 3.9. The respondent had suffered no disadvantage, and the short delay should not prevent determination on the merits. Time was extended, notwithstanding non-compliance with the evidential requirement.
2. Scope of section 33. The appeal was dismissed. Section 33 prevents the magistrates’ court from questioning the maintenance assessment or calculation, including the underlying liability to pay child support maintenance. The wording of section 33(3) refers to a person whom the Secretary of State has decided should make payments, rather than inviting the magistrates to determine whether liability arose under the statutory scheme.
3. The magistrates’ practical function is to determine whether the alleged arrears accumulated. That approach is consistent with Secretary of State for Social Security v Shotton [1996] 2 FLR 241, which treated questions concerning the quantification or validity of a maintenance assessment as matters for the Act’s review and appeal structure.
4. The payer is not without a remedy. Liability may be challenged by requesting revision of the Secretary of State’s decision under section 16, including a decision under section 11. The second question stated by the magistrates’ court was also answered No. The liability order remained in force. Costs were left for agreement, with liberty to apply within 14 days if agreement could not be reached.

1. North Somerset Family Proceedings Court: made a liability order under section 33 of the Child Support Act 1991 and stated a case for the High Court.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): extended time for filing the appeal, answered both stated questions No, and dismissed the appeal.