Rowley & Ors v Secretary of State for Department of Work and Pensions [2007] EWCA Civ 598 (19 June 2007)

Rowley & Ors v Secretary of State for Department of Work and Pensions [2007] EWCA Civ 598 (19 June 2007)

The Secretary of State does not owe a common law duty of care to claimants in the assessment, collection, or enforcement of child support under the Child Support Act 1991. The statutory scheme is comprehensive and provides specific remedies (appeal, judicial review, interest on arrears), and imposing a concurrent...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] EWCA Civ 598
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Charlotte Rowley; Appellant/claimant: Laura Rowley; Appellant/claimant: Alexander Rowley (by his Litigation Friend and sister Laura Rowley); Appellant/claimant: Denise Rowley; Respondent/defendant: Secretary of State for Department of Work and Pensions; Intervener: Resolution (Intervener)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court Decision to Strike Out Negligence Claims; Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; strike out of negligence claims upheld.
Legal Topics
Negligence of Public Authorities, Child Support Enforcement, Statutory Duties and Remedies, Duty of Care, Judicial Review, Appeals Process
Tort Law Public Law Administrative Law Family Law Negligence of Public Authorities Child Support Enforcement Statutory Duties and Remedies Duty of Care +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charlotte Rowley

Appellant/claimant

Laura Rowley

Appellant/claimant

Alexander Rowley (by his Litigation Friend and sister Laura Rowley)

Appellant/claimant

Denise Rowley

Appellant/claimant

Secretary of State for Department of Work and Pensions

Respondent/defendant

Resolution (Intervener)

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court Decision to Strike Out Negligence Claims; Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Secretary of State owe a common law duty of care in the assessment, collection, and enforcement of child support under the Child Support Act 1991?
  2. 2 Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose such a duty given the statutory scheme?
  3. 3 Are the remedies provided by statute sufficiently comprehensive to exclude a common law duty of care?

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State does not owe a common law duty of care to claimants in the assessment, collection, or enforcement of child support under the Child Support Act 1991. The statutory scheme is comprehensive and provides specific remedies (appeal, judicial review, interest on arrears), and imposing a concurrent duty of care would be inconsistent with Parliament's intention. There is no voluntary assumption of responsibility by the Secretary of State, and the losses claimed are primarily economic and not actionable in negligence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; strike out of negligence claims upheld.

Orders

  • Claims for damages in negligence against the Secretary of State struck out.
  • No common law duty of care owed by the Secretary of State in the performance of statutory child support functions.