Archer, R (On the Application Of) v Odgers
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- HIS HONOUR JUDGE COTTER QC
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Family Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Applicant challenged the Respondent's decisions on child maintenance contributions, claiming they were illegal, irrational, ultra vires, and breached legitimate expectations. The Respondent argued there was an adequate alternative remedy through appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. The court agreed, emphasizing the principle that judicial review is a remedy of last resort and dismissed the claim.
J U D G M E N T
1. HIS HONOUR JUDGE COTTER Q.C.: This is a claim brought by the Applicant by which she seeks to challenge decisions made by the Respondent specifically, three decisions to grant a succession of a non-residence parent child maintenance contributions on 10th October 2012, 26th November 2013 and 30th April 2014.
2. The Respondent has powers and obligations under the Child Support Act 1991 . It is a creature of statute. By that I mean it operates solely under a discrete statutory scheme with a specific function. It is in essence an administrative scheme. It does not guarantee payments as its role is to assess the non-resident parent's income and, if requested, collect maintenance from them which it passes to the parent with care. The amount received by the parent with care is dependent on the income of the non-resident parent declared or inputted as determined under the legislation, together with the ability of the Agency to collect those sums.
3. The challenge to the decisions to which I have referred as set out in the grounds is based upon arguments that
there had been illegality through consideration of irrelevant considerations and failure to consider relevant considerations, specifically that the respondent has failed to take into account recent findings of a First-tier Tribunal, that the non-resident parent (here Mr Odgers) had been diverting income, and also that a Tax Return was taken into account when previously the Tax Return had been dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal as not credible.
there was an unlawful fettering of discretion
the decision was irrational.
the Respondent had acted ultra vires
there was a breach of a legitimate expectation that the Authority would have regard to and act in accordance with the recent decision reached by the Tribunal.
4. In short, the response on behalf of the Respondent is, firstly, that there was an adequate alternative remedy, an appeal again to the First-tier Tribunal, as indicated on the decision letters and, secondly, that all decisions were made were validly made given the relevant facts.
5. When this matter first came before me in the run up to the hearing I indicated in an order, to which I shall shortly refer, that I wished the first issue of adequate alternative remedy to be addressed as the first issue. Argument on that matter has taken much of the time of the court today. Sadly, we were not able to start much before 12 o'clock by reason of the Applicant’s inability to pri