Ford, R (on the application of) v Inland Revenue

The discretion to determine which of two responsible persons receives Child Benefit is broad. It permits consideration of the wider family circumstances, including the position of other children, provided the decision remains fair and reasonable. The benefit cannot be split in respect of one child, but it may be awarded to different parents for different children. Internal guidance stating relevant factors is not necessarily exhaustive or prescriptive. A decision-maker may balance those factors and reach any conclusion within the range of reasonable responses. The fact that one parent receives Income Support is relevant, but it need not determine the outcome.

The claimant and the interested party were divorced parents who shared care of two children. Child Benefit for one child was paid to the claimant and, following an application by the interested party, benefit for the other child was awarded to her. The claimant sought judicial review of that decision under paragraph 5 of Schedule 10 to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992.

The issues were whether the Revenue could consider the arrangements for both children, whether it had failed to follow its internal guidance, whether relevant matters had been ignored, and whether the decision was irrational or defeated a legitimate expectation.

1. The claim was dismissed. The Revenue’s decision to award Child Benefit for one child to each parent was lawful.
2. Section 144(3) and Schedule 10 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 prevent Child Benefit for an individual child being split between two recipients. They do not prevent different parents receiving benefit for different children, or prevent the decision-maker from considering the wider family circumstances. Paragraph 5 confers a discretion in wide terms. There was no basis for implying the proposed restriction.
3. The internal guidance was neither prescriptive nor exhaustive. It stressed that each case was discretionary, had to be considered on its merits, and required a fair and reasonable decision in the light of all the evidence. The guidance did not exclude consideration of other children or require the factors listed in it to produce a particular result.
4. The Revenue had considered the claimant’s receipt of Income Support and the other relevant factors. That circumstance was relevant but did not require Child Benefit to be awarded to him. Where the parents had nearly equal responsibility for the two children, awarding benefit for one child to each parent was plainly within the range of reasonable decisions. The decision was not irrational on Wednesbury grounds.
5. The legitimate-expectation argument added nothing because there had been no failure to follow the guidance. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs, subject to detailed assessment and the relevant public-funding provisions.