Where a payer’s income reaches the level at which a ‘top-up’ child maintenance order may be made, the payee has two options. First, it is open to the payee to apply to the court to vary the original order. The fact that the order has been in place for more than 12 months (sections 4(10) and 8(3A) of the Child Support Act 1991 (CSA 1991)) does not mean that the only available course of action is now to apply for a maintenance calculation (per V v V (Child Maintenance)). The court’s discretion as to quantum is then unfettered. If an application is made to the court, it

We have assumed that 12 months or more has elapsed since the order was made. The Family Courts only have very limited powers with regard to child maintenance, which is governed in the main by the Child Support Act 1991 (CSA 1991). The court retains a residual power in respect of parties outside of England and Wales, or where a party’s income is in excess of £156,000 gross pa, when the court can award a top up to the Child maintenance Service (CMS) maximum maintenance calculation, or where the parties have reached an agreement. Where an agreement is embodied in a court order, after 12 months, either party may apply

By virtue of section 8(5) of the Child Support Act 1991 (CSA 1991) (as amended by section 26 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 (CSPSSA 2000) and CSPSSA 2000, Sch 3, para 11(1)–(2)) and the Child Maintenance (Written Agreements) Order 1993, SI 1993/620, the courts retain jurisdiction to make a consent order embodying periodical payments for a child, and subsequently to vary such an order. CSA 1991, s 4(10) of the provides: ‘(10) No application may be made at any time under this section with respect to a qualifying child or any qualifying children if— (a)

Where parties are separated and a child lives primarily with one parent, maintenance is required to be paid by the other parent for the child. Government policy encourages parents to agree voluntary arrangements for child maintenance by way of a family-based agreement. Such agreements can take into consideration such factors as the parents wish, to include for example the payment of school fees. Many such agreements are based upon the figures that would otherwise be payable under the child maintenance service (CMS) statutory formula. Where parents cannot agree, an application can be made to the CMS to enforce payment. See Practice Note:

The ‘family’ of orders available under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) are flexible instruments that can be adapted to the plethora of circumstances that may arise during the upbringing of a child. The ChA 1989, s 8 orders are child arrangements orders (spend time with and live with), prohibited steps orders, and specific issue orders.   In the event that the party with whom the child formerly lived refuses to provide the child’s belongings to the parent with whom the child has been ordered to live, consideration could be given to an application for a specific issue order to address and remedy the issue. A specific issue order is an order giving directions

This Q&A has assumed that there are no relevant covenants relating to repair. When considering maintenance of features on or near the boundary between properties, it is likely to be relevant to consider the following. First, the precise location of the boundary in relation to the feature. For guidance, see Practice

What happens when a claimant dies? Where a party to a claim dies but the cause of action survives, the claim does not abate by reason of the death. See Jones v Simes on this point and section Administration actions—personal representatives and the deceased's liabilities—Subsisting claims in Lexis+ UK Practical

This Q&A assumes that the solicitor did not go on the court’s record. The costs which are recoverable by litigants in person are governed by CPR 46.5 and CPR PD 46, para 3.1. The general rule is that a litigant in person can recover costs for the same categories of work and

Issuing a claim via MCOL As explained in CPR PD 7E, a claimant may request the issue of a claim form by completing and sending an online claim form and paying the issue fee using Money Claim Online (MCOL). The claimant is not obliged to file and serve the particulars of claim online and has the option instead of doing so separately. If so, the normal rules for service apply and the claimant must file a certificate of service. Stating the incorrect address on the claim form Where the incorrect address is given upon completing the claim form and issuing the claim, the MCOL’s User Guide for Claimants advises that ‘you may be required to amend the claim. This may include a formal application with a fee and/or

It is necessary to differentiate between the different terms used in the CPR relating to claims and limitation, namely ‘starting proceedings’, ‘issue of a claim form’ and whether a claim is ‘brought’. Proceedings are ‘started’ on the date of issue of the claim form, being the date which is entered on the claim form itself, and all rules under

For the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980), the limitation period runs from the date of accrual of the cause of action until the claim is brought. This is not necessarily the same date as the date the claim is issued or served. An action is brought for

From the question, we assume that the claim form has been correctly served in accordance with CPR 6 and in this event it is entirely possible that a default judgment may be validly entered even where the defendant was not aware of the claim. Upon becoming aware of the default judgment however, it will be open for the judgment debtor to consider an application to the court to set aside the judgment. Whether it is better for the claimant to consent or oppose such an application will depend on the circumstances. CPR 13.3 provides that the court