Chandler v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor

Chandler v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor

Regular payments to an absent parent derived from capital are not 'income' and do not fall within para. 15 of Schedule 1 of the MASC Regulations. The legislative scheme draws a clear distinction between capital and income, and para. 15 is a sweep-up provision for income, not capital. If Parliament intended to include capital, it would have done so expressly.

Parties
Appellant: Chandler; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Second Respondent: Mandy Bishop
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Child Support Commissioner
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Child Maintenance Assessment, Distinction Between Income and Capital, Interpretation of Child Support (maintenance Assessments and Special Cases) Regulations 1992, Anti Avoidance Provisions in Child Support
Family Law Social Security Law Child Maintenance Assessment Distinction Between Income and Capital Interpretation of Child Support (maintenance Assessments and Special Cases) Regulations 1992 Anti Avoidance Provisions in Child Support

Case Brief

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chandler

Appellant

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

First Respondent

Mandy Bishop

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Child Support Commissioner

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether regular payments to an absent parent, derived from capital, should be treated as income for child maintenance liability under para. 15 of Schedule 1 of the MASC Regulations
  2. 2 Whether the legislative scheme distinguishes between capital and income for child support purposes

Ratio Decidendi

Regular payments to an absent parent derived from capital are not 'income' and do not fall within para. 15 of Schedule 1 of the MASC Regulations. The legislative scheme draws a clear distinction between capital and income, and para. 15 is a sweep-up provision for income, not capital. If Parliament intended to include capital, it would have done so expressly.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Matter remitted for a fresh determination on the basis that regular payments from capital are not income under para. 15 of Schedule 1 of the MASC Regulations