PJG v Child Support Agency

An appeal from magistrates in a child-support matter lies only by way of case stated under section 111 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980, subject to a short time limit which cannot be extended. Judicial review may nevertheless be available where magistrates make a liability order after being given an erroneous figure on the central issue of the amount due. Such a miscarriage of justice requires intervention, and delay does not necessarily prevent relief.

Under section 33 of the Child Support Act 1991, magistrates must determine whether the relevant payments became payable and remain unpaid, but must not question the underlying maintenance assessment. The matter may be remitted for rehearing, while consequential charging orders should be addressed by the county court.

The appellant challenged a liability order made by Andover Magistrates' Court under section 33 of the Child Support Act 1991 in the sum of £20,850.37. He attempted to appeal by notice of motion in the Family Division and sought permission to appeal out of time.

The Child Support Agency accepted that its calculation was wrong and that the correct figure, on its own revised calculation, was £19,853.13. It also accepted that the liability order should be quashed, but proposed that the proceedings be treated as judicial review and remitted to the magistrates. The central issues were whether there was a competent appeal, whether judicial review could provide a remedy, and what consequential orders should be made.

1. Nature of proceedings. There was no competent appeal. The only method of appealing from justices in a child-support matter was by case stated under section 111 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, and the applicable short time limit could not be extended.
2. Judicial review. Judicial review could nevertheless lie. The court had jurisdiction to extend time for a judicial-review claim. Where the CSA had given the magistrates an erroneous figure on the central issue of the amount for which the liability order should be made, the resulting decision involved a miscarriage of justice. The Administrative Court was duty bound to intervene, notwithstanding delay. The error was attributable to the CSA, even though it was made innocently; it was not necessary to characterise the magistrates as having failed to discharge their statutory duty.
3. Scope of the magistrates' jurisdiction. Section 33(3) required the magistrates to be satisfied that the relevant payments had become payable and had not been paid. Section 33(4) prevented them from questioning the maintenance assessment. The boundary between those provisions could be difficult and was for the magistrates to determine on the facts and after hearing argument. Questions of calculation and questions of enforcement were allocated to different tribunal structures.
4. Orders. The proceedings were transferred to the Administrative Court and treated as a claim for judicial review. The liability order for £20,850.37 was quashed and the application for a liability order was remitted to a differently constituted bench of magistrates. The charging orders were not set aside in these proceedings, but the CSA undertook to apply to the Basingstoke County Court to set them aside within 21 days. There was no order as to costs.

The judgment states that the matter was brought as an attempted appeal from the liability order made by Andover Magistrates' Court on 24 August 2004. No prior appellate decision is stated. The High Court treated the proceedings as a claim for judicial review, quashed the liability order and remitted the application to a differently constituted bench of magistrates.