Crozier v Crozier
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 December 1993 |
| Date | 07 December 1993 |
| Court | Family Division |
Family Division
Before Mrs Justice Booth
Family - maintenance of children- clean break principle does not apply
Parents were obliged to maintain their children and the clean break principle had never applied in family law proceedings relating to the maintenance of children.
There was long standing statutory provision, the most recent, the Child Support Act 1991 whereby the state could claim contribution from the liable relative for the state support of a child living with a single parent on limited means.
Mrs Justice Booth so held in the Family Division when refusing to grant leave to a former husband, Mr Gary Crozier, to appeal out of time against a consent order made in ancillary proceedings following divorce on February 8, 1989 in Carlisle County Court.
Mr Iain Goldrein for Mr Crozier; Mrs Judith Fordham for Mrs Jacqueline Crozier.
MRS JUSTICE BOOTH said that the consent order, agreed by both parties, provided that the husband transfer his half share in the former matrimonial home to his former wife in full and final settlement of all her financial claims against him.
The order also provided that there would be a nominal order for the maintenance of the one boy of the family who was then aged five and lived with the wife. The wife was in receipt of income support.
In 1993, there had been a complaint in Carlisle Magistrates' Court under the Social Security Administration Act 1992 requiring the husband to contribute to the boy's maintenance. The justices ordered him to pay £4 a week.
The husband had now received documents from the Child Support Agency and it was expected that his liability for his son's maintenance would increase to about £29 a week. The husband now sought to vary the consent order to recover his half share in the former home.
The marriage between the parties had lasted six years. On transferring his half share the husband was not required to contribute to the mortgage. But contrary to the intention of the parties he was ordered to pay £4 a week for the child. His earnings were £9,390 gross.
He now lived with another woman and her child, aged seven, and the child, now aged two, of their union. She earned about £4,800 a year. They were purchasing their home, a former council house, with the aid of a 100 per cent mortgage.
The former wife was living with a man with whom she intended to marry. They had a baby of six months. In view of the intended marriage...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Crozier v Crozier
-
AMS v Child Support Officer
...of the Child Support Act 1991. The facts are set out in the judgment of Simon Brown LJ. Cases referred to in judgmentsCrozier v Crozier[1994] 1 FCR 781, [1994] Fam 114, [1994] 2 All ER 362, 1994] 2 WLR Van den Boogaard v Laumen Case C-220/95, [1997] 3 FCR 493, [1997] QB 759, [1997] 3 All ER......
-
T v T (Consent Order: Procedure to Set Aside)
...[1987] 2 WLR 1350; [1987] 2 All ER 440. Benson v Benson[1996] 3 FCR 590. C (Rehearing: Procedure), Re[1994] 1 FCR 33. Crozier v Crozier[1994] 1 FCR 781; [1994] Fam 114; [1994] 2 WLR 444; [1994] 2 All ER 362. de Lasala v de Lasala [1980] AC 546; [1979] 3 WLR 390; [1979] 2 All ER 1146. Langle......
-
Harrison and another v Gibson and Others
...[1905] AC 84, Re Hamilton [1895] 2 Ch 370, Re Williams [1897] 2 Ch 12, Percy v. Percy (1883) 24 Ch D 616, Re Gouk [1957] 1 All ER 469, Crozier v. Crozier (1873) LR 15 Eq 282, and a Canadian case Re Ingram Estate (1961) 36WWR 536. I did not find in any of those cases a formula precisely equi......
-
Accountability, New Public Management, and the Problems of the Child Support Agency
...48/2. And see R. v. Secretaryof State for Social Security ex p. Biggin [1995] ILR 851.44 Chant, op. cit., n. 38.45 Crozier v. Crozier [1994] 2 All E.R. 362.46 Cited Social Services Select Committee, HC (1993/4) 470, para. losers.47 It was not understood that mothers on IS would gain no dire......