Hardman, R (on the application of) v The Social Security and Child Support Commissioners & Anor

Permission for judicial review of social-security decisions requires an arguable error of law, a legally recognised duty to act, or another properly justiciable public-law error. A claimant cannot reopen an appeal issue indirectly where the statutory appeal route was not used at the appropriate time. An application for supersession need not follow a prescribed form, but it must communicate clearly that supersession is sought. A compensation claim based on alleged maladministration is generally unsuitable for judicial review where no legal right to compensation is identified and an Ombudsman route is more appropriate. Claims brought substantially out of time require a good reason for extending time.

The claimant challenged decisions and alleged failures arising from child-support proceedings concerning his former wife’s habitual residence in the United Kingdom. A Child Support Appeals Tribunal had allowed his appeal, but later declined jurisdiction to reopen the residence issue. A Child Support Commissioner refused permission to appeal. The claimant also alleged that the Secretary of State had failed to decide an application concerning habitual residence and had failed to compensate him for overpaid maintenance and maladministration.

Goldring J had previously refused permission. The present hearing concerned the claimant’s renewed application for permission for judicial review.

1. Commissioner’s refusal of permission. Under section 24(1) of the Child Support Act 1991, an appeal lies to a Child Support Commissioner on a question of law. The Commissioner’s decision was therefore reviewable only for an error of law. His conclusion that the claimant had failed to pursue the appropriate appeal or supersession routes disclosed no error. Reference to Regulation 7 of the Child Support (Maintenance Arrangements and Jurisdiction) Regulations 1992 was not erroneous. Permission was refused.
2. Habitual residence and supersession. The Secretary of State had stated his view that the claimant’s former wife was habitually resident in the United Kingdom. The claimant had not, however, made an application for supersession. Such an application need not take a prescribed form, but it must be made in terms sufficient to inform the Secretary of State that supersession is requested.
3. Compensation and maladministration. The compensation challenge was brought substantially out of time. No good reason justified extending time. Further, no legal right to the claimed compensation had been identified. A claim based on maladministration was more appropriately directed to the Ombudsman, and any unmade request to the Child Support Agency’s special payments team could be pursued through that route before any later challenge.
4. The renewed application disclosed no arguable public-law error. Permission was refused on all grounds and the application was dismissed.

Goldring J refused permission to apply for judicial review by order dated 18 May 2007. The claimant renewed the application before the High Court (Administrative Court), which refused permission and dismissed it.