Chandler v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Another
Regular repayments to an absent parent from a capital loan to his employer were not income for the purposes of assessment of child maintenance, although they might be caught by antiavoidance provisions in the child maintenance legislation.
The Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Latham, Lord Justice Dyson and Lord Justice Jacob) so held on November 29, 2007, allowing an appeal by the absent parent, John Chandler, from a decision of the Child Support Commissioner on February 26, 2007, overturning a decision of a child support appeal tribunal sitting at Southampton on August 16, 2005, that the payments should count towards his liability for child maintenance. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions supported the appeal, which was opposed by the parent with care, Mandy Bishop.
LORD JUSTICE JACOB said the absent parent was the sole director and majority shareholder in a company. He had mortgaged his house and loaned the proceeds to the company, which paid him back at £2,500 a month. He received no other remuneration from the company.
There was no need to strain the construction of the legislation so as to bring such payments within the definition of income because there were antiavoidance provisions which might apply to the absent parent.
