header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
14 March 2019 / David Burrows
Issue: 7832 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Breakdown cover

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Child support: David Burrows provides a master class in family law & administration law
  • Kafka, Dicey and a child support scheme.

The 25th anniversary of the opening of the doors of the Child Support Agency (now Child Maintenance Service (CMS)) was recorded, with no enthusiasm on my part, by ‘Going separate ways’ 168 NLJ 7790, p9. The Department for Work and Pensions presides over a Kafkaesque scheme. For example, it hopelessly delays necessary enforcement and needlessly involves five different courts and tribunals:

  • magistrates’ courts civil jurisdiction (eg committal for enforcement of arrears);
  • the family court (eg lump sum deduction orders);
  • the county court (charging orders: arrears);
  • first-tier tribunals; and
  • the upper tribunal (‘administrative’ appeals (to be explained in Pt 2 of this article).

    •  

    Beyond this are rights to appeal: to the High Court, Family Division, to the Court of Appeal and to the Supreme Court (with permission). Alongside this is judicial review, often the only means of challenge to child support delegated legislation and CMS civil servant decision-making

    If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
    If you are already a subscriber sign in
    ...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

    MOVERS & SHAKERS

    Read All
    Kennedys—Milan Devani

    Kennedys—Milan Devani

    Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

    Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

    Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

    Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

    DWF—Ian Plumley

    DWF—Ian Plumley

    Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

    NEWS
    Read All
    NLJ this week: Tightening the screws on JCT terminations
    The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
    NLJ this week: Old rules, fresh warnings in employment law
    Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
    NLJ this week: The rise of the ‘ChatGPT client’ rattles the profession
    The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
    NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
    A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
    NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads
    Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
    Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
    back-to-top-scroll