Is it ‘game on’ for strategies to side-step liability?

Is it ‘game on’ for strategies to side-step liability?

Family analysis: James Pirrie, director at Family Law in Partnership, gives an overview of the possible consequences of the decision in Hakki in relation to child support.

Background

Hakki v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2014] EWCA Civ 530, [2014] All ER (D) 05 (May)

The Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) (UT) found that the claimant professional gambler was obliged to pay child support maintenance on the First-tier Tribunal’s (Social Security) factual findings that he was ‘gainfully employed’ as a ‘self-employed earner’. The claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that, on the facts, it could not be said that the claimant had had a sufficient organisation in his poker playing to make it amount to a trade or a business. However, it noted the Secretary of State’s comment that there might be a way to compel him to make such contribution by making a ‘departure direction’.

What is the significance of the decision in Hakki?

This is an early straw ‘in the wind’ as to the difficulties that the reforms to the Child Support Act 1991, that are now fully in place, will throw up. We are likely to see increasing

Subscription Form

Related Articles:
Latest Articles:

Already a subscriber? Login
RELX (UK) Limited, trading as LexisNexis, and our LexisNexis Legal & Professional group companies will contact you to confirm your email address. You can manage your communication preferences via our Preference Centre. You can learn more about how we handle your personal data and your rights by reviewing our  Privacy Policy.

Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.

Read full article

Already a subscriber? Login

About the author: