Are CMS Liability Order Hearings Just a Rubber Stamp? (What the Evidence Shows)

 

Immediate Point

If the Child Maintenance Service applies for a liability order, many people assume the court will examine whether the arrears are correct.

👉 In reality, the position is more limited.

The court’s role is not to recalculate the amount owed.
It is to consider whether the legal conditions for enforcement are met.

What the Court Is (and Is Not) Deciding

At a liability order hearing:

  • the court considers whether payments are due and unpaid
  • it checks that the correct process has been followed

👉 But it does not re-examine the underlying calculation

This reflects the legal structure of the system:

  • disputes about the amount are handled through the CMS and tribunal process
  • the court deals with enforcement of that amount

How Hearings Are Often Listed in Practice

In practice, liability order hearings are often listed in large groups.

It is not unusual for multiple cases to be listed in the same session, sometimes involving a significant number of applications dealt with in a short period of time.

👉 This can mean:

  • hearings are brief
  • cases are dealt with quickly
  • the process may feel unfamiliar or rushed, especially for litigants in person

What the FOI Evidence Shows

Freedom of Information material included in my High Court bundle provides further context.

This material refers to:

  • a bulk liability order hearing involving around 245 CMS applications in a single day
  • a sample where:
    • 202 cases were presented (North Somerset)
    • 165 liability orders were granted
    • 75 cases were presented (Norwich)
    • 72 liability orders were granted

👉 Importantly, the Department confirmed:

  • it does not routinely record how many liability orders are granted where arrears are disputed
  • in the sample reviewed, no application presented was refused



To view the full FOI CLICK HERE!

What This Means in Practice

These figures do not, by themselves, prove that every case is wrong.

However, they raise an important question:

👉 How much scrutiny is realistically applied in bulk hearings where large numbers of cases are dealt with in a short time?

This is particularly relevant where:

  • arrears are actively disputed
  • evidence has not yet been fully considered through the CMS process
  • the court is legally prevented from questioning the calculation itself

The Structural Issue

The key point is not whether safeguards exist—they do.

The issue is how those safeguards operate in practice.

The system separates:

  • determining whether arrears are correct
  • and
  • enforcing those arrears

👉 This creates a situation where:

  • disputes are handled through one process (CMS / tribunal)
  • enforcement proceeds through another (the court)
_________________________________________________________________________________

A Further Legal Question: Fair Trial and the Role of the Court

A further issue arises from the legal framework itself.

Section 33(4) of the Child Support Act 1991 provides that, when considering an application for a liability order, the court must not question the underlying maintenance calculation.

👉 This has led to an important legal question:

whether this restriction is fully consistent with the right to a fair hearing under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as incorporated by the Human Rights Act 1998.

Article 6 requires that individuals have access to a fair and effective process for determining their civil rights and obligations.

However, where:

  • the amount said to be owed is disputed
  • the court is prevented from examining that issue
  • and enforcement may proceed in parallel

👉 it raises the question of whether the process operates as a complete and effective safeguard in practice

Separation of Powers and Judicial Function

It has also been argued that preventing the court from examining the substance of the alleged debt places limits on the court’s ability to exercise independent judicial scrutiny.

Section 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 recognises the importance of judicial independence.

👉 In that context, the restriction in the Child Support Act 1991 section 33(4) raises a further question:

whether the balance between administrative decision-making and judicial oversight is operating as intended.

Burden of Proof and Natural Justice

A related concern arises in relation to the burden of proof.

The principle:

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
(the burden of proof lies on the one who asserts, not the one who denies)

is a long-established principle of natural justice.

In Gibbons and Karoonian v Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission (2012), the Court of Appeal considered issues arising from enforcement action where arrears were disputed, including concerns about how liability was established in practice.

👉 That case has been cited as highlighting the importance of proper evidential scrutiny before enforcement action proceeds.

A Question of Compatibility

Taken together, these points do not determine the issue.

But they raise a broader question:

👉 whether a system in which:

  • the court cannot examine the calculation
  • enforcement can proceed
  • and disputes are handled separately

fully reflects the practical requirements of a fair hearing under Article 6.

Where This Becomes Difficult

For many paying parents, particularly litigants in person:

  • the process is not clearly explained
  • the routes are complex
  • enforcement can move forward while disputes are still ongoing

👉 This can lead to a perception that:

  • the outcome is already decided
  • the hearing is a formality
  • there is little opportunity to challenge what is being presented

A Question of Scrutiny, Not Assumptions

It is important to be clear:

👉 The law does provide routes to challenge arrears
👉 Courts are applying the legal framework they are given

However:

👉 The FOI evidence raises a legitimate question about how that framework operates in practice in high-volume hearings

What You Should Do If You Are Affected

If you are facing a liability order and believe the arrears are wrong:

  • challenge the calculation through Mandatory Reconsideration and appeal
  • attend the hearing or respond to the court
  • make it clear if the arrears are disputed
  • ask for time if the underlying issue has not been resolved

👉 The court cannot recalculate the amount—but it can be informed that the issue is actively in dispute.

Conclusion

The question is not whether the system contains safeguards.

👉 It clearly does.

The question is:

👉 whether those safeguards operate effectively in practice—particularly in high-volume liability order hearings

The available evidence does not answer that question definitively.

But it does suggest that the issue deserves closer attention.




If this article has helped you or raised awareness, you can support this work here:

👉 https://buymeacoffee.com/4billionlie

 


Explore all topics: [Site Map]

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The £4 Billion Lie

Image
How the State and Gingerbread Framed Innocent Parents As Deadbeat Dads UK Parliament – Palace of Westminster, home of the Work and Pensions Select Committee and the Public Accounts Committee that examined Child Support Agency arrears. For more than thirty years, the British Government and its favoured charity partner, Gingerbread , have cast one group of citizens as villains: the Non  Resident Parent . Labelled “deadbeat dads,” they’ve been accused of failing their children. Behind that slogan lies a manufactured scandal — a fictitious debt worth billions, created by the Child Support Agency (CSA)  on the 1993 -2003 child support schemes and continues to be collected by the Child Maintenance Service (CMS). The Henshaw Report (2006): The Warning They Ignored In 2006, the Government commissioned Sir David Henshaw to review the failing Child Support Agency. His report, Recovering Child Support – Routes to Responsibility , was blunt: “The Agency has not delivered agai...
Read more

Gingerbread’s Misrepresentation of Child-Maintenance Arrears

Image
  Findings Summary:  Between 2016 and 2024, the charity Gingerbread (No. 230750) repeatedly asserted in media articles, parliamentary briefings, and reports that £3.8 – £4 billion in unpaid child-maintenance arrears was owed to single parents. This figure appeared in The Guardian , BBC News , The Mirror , The Sun , Raeside Chisholm Solicitors , iNews , and Early Day Motion 575 (19 October 2016) — all explicitly citing Gingerbread as the source. However, official findings from the National Audit Office (NAO), Work and Pensions Committee, and Public Accounts Committee (2009 – 2024) confirmed that the overwhelming majority of this debt was fictitious, inflated, or owed to the Secretary of State, not to parents with care. The House of Commons Library Briefing Paper CBP-7776 (2021) recorded that, of the £3.7 billion in legacy CSA arrears, only £0.1 – £0.6 billion was realistically recoverable. On 7 July 2020, the Charity Commission for England and Wales upheld a public comp...
Read more

Is the Child Maintenance Service Value for Money?

 Public services are not judged on cost alone. They are judged on whether they deliver value. Under the framework used by the National Audit Office, public spending must be assessed against three key principles: Economy – is money being spent carefully? Efficiency – are resources being used well? Effectiveness – is the system achieving its intended outcomes? These are the standards applied across Government. The question is whether the Child Maintenance Service meets them. The Cost of the System The Child Maintenance Service costs approximately: £116 million per year to operate This is public money, funded by taxpayers, and justified on the basis that it supports children by ensuring financial maintenance is paid. The Cost of the Outcomes Recent analysis based on Freedom of Information data has identified: 35 suicides among paying parents in a six-month period Using Parliament’s estimate of £1.67 million per suicide , this equates to: ~£117 million per year That is broadly equi...
Read more