Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Appellant : [The parent with care] Respondents: (1) Child Support Officer; (2) [The absent parent] Appeal Tribunal: Central London CSAT Tribunal date: 5 February 1997
The decision of the child support appeal tribunal given on 5 February 1997, in which it was held that an allowance of £40 per week was to be made to the father and absent parent from 18 April 1995 for property and capital transfers made by him under a court order of 19 February 1993, was in my judgment erroneous in point of law. I set it aside and exercise the power under s. 24(3) Child Support Act 1991 to substitute my own decision, as the relevant facts appear clearly from the findings of the tribunal and the documents in the appeal file.
This case concerns the maintenance for two children, now teenagers or nearly so, who have lived with their mother since their parents' marriage broke up some nine years ago. In January 1990 she petitioned for divorce, with claims for periodical maintenance, property adjustment and lump sum provision orders being included in her petition in the usual way. Negotiations through solicitors on financial matters were successful and led to an agreed order made by the district judge on 19 February 1993, at pages 41-44.
In particular, that order implemented a principle agreed between the parties that the family home was to be transferred into the sole ownership of the children's mother in satisfaction of her own capital claims, as distinct from those for maintenance for herself or the children. This was recorded expressly in the letter dated 22 August 1991 from the father's solicitors at page 40 of the file, saying that:
"The former matrimonial home is agreed to be worth approximately £75,000 subject to a mortgage of £45,000. It is, as it has been from the outset of these proceedings, our client's proposal that the former matrimonial home should be transferred into your client's sole name subject to his release from the covenants under the existing mortgage in consideration for which your client would consent to the dismissal of her claims for capital and property adjustment orders.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.