Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Preston Paris Ingold & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

[2023] EWHC 3207 (Admin)
Several single mums sued the government's child support agency because they weren't getting the money owed by the dads. The court said the agency wasn't doing anything illegal, even though it sometimes made mistakes. The mums' complaints mostly arrived too late to be considered.

Key Facts

  • Judicial review claim brought by three single parent families and an adult child, challenging the Child Maintenance Service's (CMS) failure to collect and enforce child maintenance payments.
  • Claimants allege persistent failures by the CMS, leading to thousands of pounds in unpaid maintenance and claiming this constitutes economic abuse.
  • Claimants are single mothers experiencing domestic abuse from their children's fathers.
  • The case involves both a challenge to CMS policies and practices and individual case failures.
  • The 2023 Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Act, not yet in force, introduces changes to the system.
  • The court considers the Callan Report's recommendations for improvements in handling domestic abuse cases.
  • The court examines the statutory framework of the Child Support Act 1991, including direct pay and collect & pay systems.
  • The court reviews the CMS's guidance on determining 'unlikely to pay' and its relevance to domestic abuse situations.

Legal Principles

Common law duty of a father to maintain legitimate children, but no common law right to periodical child maintenance payments before the 1991 Act.

R (Kehoe) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2004] EWCA Civ 225

Child Support Act 1991 establishes a comprehensive scheme for assessing, collecting, and enforcing child maintenance, transferring responsibility from courts to the CMS.

Child Support Act 1991

The 1991 Act imposes a duty on the non-resident parent (NRP) to pay maintenance but does not confer a right on the parent with care (PWC) to enforce payment directly.

R (Kehoe) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2005] UKHL 48; Department of Social Security v Butler [1995] 1 WLR 1528

Article 8 ECHR imposes a positive obligation on the state to take protective measures in certain circumstances, but it does not extend to requiring financial benefits.

Kay v Lambeth London BC [2006] UKHL 10; R (SC) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2021] UKSC 26; R (JS) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] UKSC 16

Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR protects property rights, but the state's obligation is to ensure adequate legal protection and remedies, not necessarily to guarantee payment.

Kotov v Russia App. No. 54522/00, 3 April 2012 (GC)

Article 14 ECHR prohibits discrimination, requiring a showing of a difference in treatment based on an identifiable characteristic without objective and reasonable justification.

R (SC) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2021] UKSC 223

Padfield principle: a public body must not frustrate the purpose of the legislation it administers.

Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food [1968] AC 997

Outcomes

Claim dismissed.

The court found no systemic failings in CMS policies or practices that violated claimants' rights under Articles 8 and 1 Protocol 1 ECHR or constituted unlawful discrimination under Article 14 ECHR. While acknowledging individual cases with procedural missteps, the court held that these did not demonstrate a pattern of unlawful conduct. The claims were also largely out of time.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.