Law v Ahumuda & Ors

A county court exercising its express jurisdiction under section 55A of the Family Law Act 1986 may determine parenthood by declaration, but has no general power to control separate child-maintenance enforcement proceedings. An order staying enforcement is outside that jurisdiction where it concerns no current issue in the declaration proceedings and is not ancillary to the relief sought. Section 21(1)(a) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 independently bars injunction-type relief against the Crown. The court also indicated, obiter, that a persuasive res judicata issue should ordinarily be determined before ordering a DNA-based factual investigation.

The Child Support Agency, now the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission, had pursued liability orders for unpaid child maintenance. In separate proceedings under section 55A of the Family Law Act 1986, Mr Law sought a declaration that he was not the child’s father. HHJ Yelton adjourned the Commission’s application to strike out the proceedings for issue estoppel or abuse of process, directed a DNA test under section 20 of the Family Law Reform Act 1969, and stayed enforcement of the maintenance liabilities until a further hearing. The Commission appealed, arguing that the judge lacked jurisdiction and that the stay was barred by section 21(1)(a) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. The central issue was whether the county court could restrain enforcement proceedings outside the statutory declaration proceedings.

1. Appeal allowed. The Court set aside HHJ Yelton’s order staying enforcement. All three members of the court agreed.
2. The jurisdiction conferred by section 55A of the Family Law Act 1986 was an express statutory jurisdiction concerning the issue of parenthood. The only available relief in those proceedings was a declaration on that issue. It did not confer a general jurisdiction to control proceedings brought under a different statutory code for enforcing child-maintenance arrears.
3. The impugned order was outside jurisdiction for two related reasons. It did not relate to any current course of action in issue in the section 55A proceedings, and it was not ancillary to the declaratory relief sought. The county court was not seized of enforcement proceedings and therefore had no power to grant a stay of enforcement.
4. The order was also barred by section 21(1)(a) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, which prevents relief that could be granted by injunction between subjects from being granted against the Crown.
5. In passing, the Court considered the Commission’s res judicata argument to appear persuasive. The issue-estoppel or abuse-of-process application should, in the ordinary course, have been determined before the judge embarked on a factual investigation involving DNA testing.
6. Pending the next hearing, the Court contemplated an undertaking restricting enforcement to the taking of steps to obtain a further charging order against Mr Law’s property.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 10 September 2010 Wilson LJ granted permission to appeal and interim relief. On 6 October 2010 the court allowed the appeal and set aside the stay order: [2010] EWCA Civ 1149.
• Cambridge County Court: On 29 June 2010 HHJ Yelton adjourned the Commission’s strike-out application, directed a DNA test, and stayed enforcement until the next hearing.