Dickson v Rennie [2014] EWHC 4306 (Fam) (10 December 2014)

Dickson v Rennie [2014] EWHC 4306 (Fam) (10 December 2014)

The court has no jurisdiction to restore or vary the previous maintenance order or to make a 'top-up' order unless the CMS has made a maximum assessment based on gross weekly income exceeding £3,000. The court cannot order a lump sum to cover maintenance shortfall as this would circumvent the statutory scheme. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 4306 (Fam)
Parties
Applicant (mother): Dickson; Respondent (father): Rennie
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Family Law Financial Provision for Child / Application for Restoration of Maintenance Order and Lump Sum Under Schedule 1 Children Act 1989, Post Child Maintenance Service Assessment
Outcome
All applications by the mother dismissed except for two lump sum orders.
Legal Topics
Child Support Act 1991, Schedule 1 Children Act 1989, Jurisdiction of Child Maintenance Service, Top Up Maintenance Orders, Lump Sum Orders for Children
Family Law Child Maintenance Child Support Act 1991 Schedule 1 Children Act 1989 Jurisdiction of Child Maintenance Service Top Up Maintenance Orders Lump Sum Orders for Children

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dickson

Applicant (mother)

Rennie

Respondent (father)

Procedural Posture

Family Law Financial Provision for Child / Application for Restoration of Maintenance Order and Lump Sum Under Schedule 1 Children Act 1989, Post Child Maintenance Service Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to restore or vary a maintenance order after the Child Maintenance Service has made a maintenance calculation
  2. 2 Whether the court can make a 'top-up' maintenance order under section 8(6) Child Support Act 1991 in the absence of a maximum CMS assessment
  3. 3 Whether the court can order a lump sum to cover maintenance shortfall or legal costs

Ratio Decidendi

The court has no jurisdiction to restore or vary the previous maintenance order or to make a 'top-up' order unless the CMS has made a maximum assessment based on gross weekly income exceeding £3,000. The court cannot order a lump sum to cover maintenance shortfall as this would circumvent the statutory scheme. The court can order a lump sum for reasonable legal costs to pursue a CMS appeal, but not for debts arising from reduced maintenance.

Court Disposition

All applications by the mother dismissed except for two lump sum orders.

Orders

  • Father to pay a lump sum up to £1,500 for specified household repairs, subject to builder's estimate.
  • Father to pay a lump sum of £10,000 to fund the mother's legal costs for the CMS appeal, with conditions on use and refund of any excess.