Decision No: CSC3/97

THE CHILD SUPPORT (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1991

Appeal to the Child Support Commissioner
on a question of law from the decision of the
Belfast Child Support Appeal Tribunal
dated 24 March 1997

DECISION OF THE CHILD SUPPORT COMMISSIONER

1.	Having considered all the circumstances of the case and no request having been made for an oral hearing, I am satisfied that this appeal can be dealt with without an oral hearing.

2.	I hereby allow the appeal of the Child Support Officer against the decision dated 24 March 1997 of the Child Support Appeal Tribunal.

3.	I proceed to give the decision which the Child Support Appeal Tribunal should have given ie the application dated 19 February 1997 for further directions is dismissed.

	BACKGROUND

4.	The Child Support Appeal Tribunal on 14 February 1997, by a decision of that date, dismissed the appeal by the absent parent (Mr D... S...) against the Child Support Officer's decision dated 18 November 1996.

5.	On 19 February 1997 a letter was written by the Child Support Officer to the Child Support Appeal Tribunal.  This letter sought clarification of the decision of 14 February 1997.  The letter was treated as an application for directions under the Child Support Appeal Tribunals (Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1993, Regulation 13(4).

6.	The Child Support Appeal Tribunal considered the letter as such application and gave what appear to be directions to the Child Support Officer to correct an error in the 2nd tier review decision as regards the effective date .  These directions were given on 24 March 1997.

7.	The Child Support Officer now appeals against the decision of the Child Support Appeal Tribunal of 24 March 1997 with leave of the Tribunal Chairman.

	REASONS

8.	The provisions of the above-mentioned Regulation 13(4) are as follows:-

"(4) A child support officer may apply to the tribunal or another
tribunal for directions or further directions and the tribunal may
give such directions or further directions as it thinks fit where
the child support officer -

(a) to whom a case is referred by the Secretary of State under
section 20(3) of the Act (procedure following a successful
appeal) is uncertain, having regard to the terms of the 
decision an of any directions contained in it, how he should
deal with the case; or

(b) who has been notified of a decision of a tribunal under section
28H of the Act or on a referral is uncertain, having regard to
the terms of that decision or of any departure direction given
by that tribunal, how he should deal with the case."

Regulation 13(4)(b) is not relevant to this case being concerned with departure applications and with referrals.

Regulation 13(4)(a) relates to clarification of the terms of directions given on a successful appeal.

9.	In this case the appeal to the Child Support Appeal Tribunal of 16 February 1997 was unsuccessful.  The Child Support Appeal Tribunal of 24 March 1997 therefore had no power under Regulation 13(4) to give the directions it did.

10.	I have had to consider whether or not the directions given by the Child Support Appeal Tribunal of 24 March 1997 amount to a decision for the purposes of Article 25(1) of the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991.  In my view they do.

11.	I have read the GB Commissioner's decision CCS/11260/1995 and am in full agreement with paragraph 8 thereof.  It appears to me that the legislature in Article 25(1) giving certain persons a right of appeal against the decision of a Child Support Appeal Tribunal must have intended there to be a right of appeal against the original decision and any clarification of same by way of directions.  A Child Support Officer in dealing with a child support maintenance assessment would carry out the Tribunal's decision as clarified.  Logically therefore there must be a right of appeal against the clarification if it is considered to be wrong in law.  It follows that the clarification must be considered as an appealable decision.

12.	In connection with the question of whether or not the decision clarifying directions is to be regarded as a separate decision, I am of the view that it must be regarded as separate.   The right to exercise appeal rights should not be delayed by an application for clarification if the party is dissatisfied with the first (unclarified) decision of a Child Support Appeal Tribunal.  The unclarified decision and the clarification must be regarded as separate.  I agree in this respect also with CCS/11260/1995.

13.	I did consider whether or not to treat the appeal against the decision giving further directions as an appeal also against the original decision dated 14 February 1997.  On balance, I decided not to do so as the parties have not asked for this to be done and there may be substantive matters which they would wish to raise in relation to the decision of 14 February 1997 if leave to appeal against same was to be sought.

14.	For the reasons above I allow the Child Support Officer's appeal against the decision dated 24 March 1997.

(Signed):  M F Brown

COMMISSIONER

26 February 1998