Pabari v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor

Pabari v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor

The Commissioner correctly identified and applied the statutory test for 'necessarily incurred' housing costs. The test is not whether the costs are the absolute minimum, but whether, in the circumstances, they were necessarily incurred for the purpose of securing possession of the home. The Commissioner's conclusion that the respondent's mortgage costs were necessarily incurred, even though he did not extend the term, was within the bounds of reasonable judgment and involved no error of law.

Parties
Appellant: Minaxi Pabari; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Second Respondent: Nilesh Pabari
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Child Support Commissioner to Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Maintenance Assessment, Housing Costs, Statutory Interpretation
Family Law Child Support Maintenance Assessment Housing Costs Statutory Interpretation

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 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minaxi Pabari

Appellant

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

First Respondent

Nilesh Pabari

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Child Support Commissioner to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct interpretation of 'necessarily incurred' housing costs under paragraph 4(1)(a) of Schedule 3 to the Child Support (Maintenance Assessments and Special Cases) Regulations 1992?
  2. 2 Does the duration and amount of a mortgage affect whether costs are 'necessarily incurred'?
  3. 3 Did the Commissioner err in law in his approach to the facts and the statutory test?

Ratio Decidendi

The Commissioner correctly identified and applied the statutory test for 'necessarily incurred' housing costs. The test is not whether the costs are the absolute minimum, but whether, in the circumstances, they were necessarily incurred for the purpose of securing possession of the home. The Commissioner's conclusion that the respondent's mortgage costs were necessarily incurred, even though he did not extend the term, was within the bounds of reasonable judgment and involved no error of law.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.