Preston Paris Ingold & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

The statutory child-maintenance scheme confers discretionary collection and enforcement powers. It does not guarantee payment, create a direct enforcement right for the parent with care, or impose an absolute duty to recover arrears.

A positive obligation under Article 8 may arise where the State knows, or ought to know, that the scheme is being used to inflict domestic economic abuse which it could prevent. The duty and its scope are fact-sensitive, including the existence of a real and immediate risk and the severity of harm.

Guidance is unlawful only where it inevitably requires, permits or produces unlawful decision-making in a legally significant number of cases. The claim failed because the guidance permitted individualised consideration of domestic abuse and the evidence did not establish systemic unlawfulness.

The claimants, comprising single-parent families and an adult child of a single mother, sought judicial review of alleged failures by the Child Maintenance Service to collect and enforce child-maintenance arrears under the Child Support Act 1991.

They challenged the statutory guidance and the operation of the scheme under Articles 8, 14 and A1P1 ECHR, and alleged a breach of the Padfield duty to promote the purpose of the legislation. The claim included complaints about Collect & Pay decisions, enforcement delays, investigation of non-resident parents and the treatment of domestic abuse.

The central issues were whether the scheme or its operation breached Convention obligations, whether the claims were out of time, and whether the Defendant had frustrated the statutory purpose.

1. Disposition. The claim for judicial review was dismissed. The Article 8, A1P1, Article 14 and Padfield grounds failed. Most challenges were also out of time, and no extension was justified.
2. The Child Support Act 1991 creates a legal obligation on the non-resident parent to pay maintenance calculated under the Act. It gives the parent with care no direct right to recover payment from the non-resident parent and does not impose an absolute duty on the Secretary of State to secure payment. Collection and enforcement are discretionary and subject to statutory conditions, including the welfare of affected children.
3. Article 8 does not generally require the State to provide financial or welfare benefits, and failure to collect child maintenance does not, without more, engage Article 8. However, if the State knew or ought to have known that the CMS scheme was being used to inflict domestic economic abuse which the State could prevent, a positive duty might arise to take reasonable steps to provide effective protection. The existence and scope of that duty depend on the facts, including a real and immediate risk and the severity of the harm.
4. The policy challenge failed under the Gillick and R (A) principles. The guidance did not inevitably lead to unlawful decisions in a material and identifiable number of cases. It required decision-makers to consider the merits and all relevant factors, and did not prevent consideration of domestic abuse. It also contained safeguards for Direct Pay arrangements where domestic abuse was relevant.
5. The 2023 statutory amendment permitting collection where prescribed evidence of domestic abuse exists did not demonstrate that the existing scheme breached Article 8. It represented a policy choice to provide additional protection.
6. The individual Article 8 challenge failed. The claimants did not identify a specific unlawful decision or omission, and an accumulation of lawful decisions did not become unlawful. The evidence showed that reasonable collection and enforcement steps had generally been taken. Although BB’s case was handled poorly between August 2019 and February 2020, the evidence did not establish domestic economic abuse or an actionable breach.
7. The A1P1 claim failed because the claimants accepted that the statutory scheme was lawful and did not challenge a specific unlawful decision. In any event, unpaid maintenance did not constitute the claimants’ possessions for A1P1 purposes. The Article 14 claim failed because there was no neutral measure causing disparate impact, no Thlimmenos difference requiring different treatment, and any differential approach was objectively justified within the margin of appreciation.
8. The Padfield ground failed. The evidence showed conscientious use of the discretionary collection and enforcement powers, rather than frustration of the legislative purpose.