[1996] NISSCSC CSC5/96 (24 January 1997)
Application No: CSC5/96
THE CHILD SUPPORT (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1991
Application by the applicant for leave to appeal
and appeal to the Child Support Commissioner
on a question of law from the decision of the
Ballymoney Child Support Appeal Tribunal
dated 20 December 1995
DECISION OF THE CHILD SUPPORT COMMISSIONER
"I now wish to augment the grounds of appeal submitted byMr L... as follows:
1. The tribunal erred in law in determining that Mr L...'s
earnings should be calculated over a 12 month period in
accordance with para.2(4) of Schedule 1 of the Maintenance Assessments and Special Cases Regulations. The purpose of that regulation is to enable the normal weekly earnings of a parent to be determined more accurately. There is no indication in this case that the tribunal or the child support officer had any grounds for deciding that the ordinary provisions of para.2(1) should not apply.
2. In addition and in the alternative, if the tribunal had
sufficient grounds for determining that the provisions
of para.2(4) should apply rather than the provisions of
para.2(1), it is respectfully submitted that they have
failed to state adequate reasons as to why this should
be so. In particular, while the tribunal have stated
that the calculation would allow Mr L...'s wages to be
calculated more accurately, it is submitted that this is
an insufficient statement of reasons and erroneous in
law under reg.13(2) of the CSAT Procedure Regulations."
"The appellant Mr J L... (the absent parent) has stated in hisgrounds of appeal
. the tribunal have erred in law in finding that the earnings
should be calculated over a 12 month period without identifying that the assessment period required by the legislation did not apply;
. the tribunal failed to give adequate reasons why the alternative period was appropriate.
Regulation 7 and paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 1 of the Child
Support (Maintenance Assessments and Special Cases) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1992 provides that the earnings to be taken into account are to be assessed as a weekly average over a period determined under paragraph 2 of Schedule 1. At the material time, paragraph 2 as far as is relevant -
"2(1) Subject to sub paragraph (2) to (4)
(b) where a person is paid monthly, the amount of those earnings shall be determined by aggregating the amounts received in the 2 months ending with the relevant week, multiplying the aggregate by 6 and dividing by 52;(4) Where a calculation would, for this sub-paragraph, produce an amount which, in the opinion of the child support officer, does not accurately reflect the normal amount of the earnings of the person in question, such earnings, or any part of them, shall be calculated by reference to such other period as may, in the particular case, enable the normal weekly earnings of that person to be determined more accurately and for this purpose the child support officer shall have regard to -
(a) the earnings received, or due to be received, from any employment in which the person in question is engaged, has been engaged or is due to be engaged;(b) the duration and pattern, or the expected duration and pattern, of any employment of that person."
A GB Commissioner in an unreported decision CCS/016/1994 confirmed that the legislation requires that the earnings in the prescribed assessment period under paragraph 2(1) must be considered before an alternative period under 2(4) is used.
The initial application was made on 6 January 1995 by the parent
with care in respect of 3 qualifying children. A maintenance
enquiry form was issued on 11 January 1995. Paragraph 2(1)
provides that the amount of net earnings shall be determined
by calculating the average over a specific period "ending with the
relevant week". For the purposes of calculating the earnings
of the absent parent the definition of relevant week specified in
regulation 1(2)(a)(ii) of the MASC Regulations is appropriate.
The relevant week is the 6 January 1995 to 12 January 1995. As
Mr L... is paid monthly, the assessment period under Schedule 1
paragraph 2(1)(b) is 13 November 1994 to 12 January 1995.
On a review under Article 20 of the CS (NI) Order 1991 the CSO
used earnings in a 12 month period without identifying why the
assessment period used by the first CSO did not give an accurate
reflection of the normal earnings.
On appeal the tribunal upheld the CSO decision. I would submit that the tribunal did not give adequate reasons why the 12 month period gave a more accurate reflection and did not state why the
prescribed assessment period in Schedule 1 paragraph 2(1)(b) should not be used.
I would further submit that the tribunal decision on this issue is
inadequate and failed to comply with the requirements of regulation 13(2)(b) of the Child Support Appeal Tribunal's (Procedure) Regulations (NI) 1993. The decision is therefore wrong in law.
Should the Commissioner decide to treat the application as an appeal, I consent to him doing so and determining any question on the application as if it arose on appeal."
(Signed): C C G McNally
COMMISSIONER
24 January 1997