NO v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor
[2024] UKUT 342 (AAC)
DT v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor (CSM)
17 July 2023
[2023] UKUT 175 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A court case about how much a dad should pay in child support. The first court used the wrong year's income to calculate it. The second court corrected this mistake and used the correct year's income instead.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against a consent order made by the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) on 5 October 2020 regarding child support maintenance calculation.
- •The FTT based the calculation on the father's gross income of £81,725 for the tax year 2016/17.
- •The father's initial assessment was based on his 2015/16 income (£66,319.62).
- •The father argued that his redundancy payment should be deducted from his 2016/17 income.
- •The Secretary of State supported the appeal; the mother opposed but couldn't make technical legal arguments.
- •No oral hearing was requested; the appeal was decided on papers.
- •The consent order was agreed without the Secretary of State's representative present at the FTT hearing.
- •The FTT's statement of reasons was inadequate and failed to explain why the 2016/17 income was used.
Legal Principles
Child support maintenance calculation under the 2012 scheme is generally based on 'historic income' (last tax year's taxable income) unless current income is at least 25% lower.
Child Support Act 1991 and Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012
A consent order must be 'appropriate' and have the consent of all parties.
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008
The taxable element of a redundancy payment is included in 'historic income' but not 'current income'.
BB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (CSM) [2019] UKUT 314 (AAC)
A variation in income calculation may be made if the non-resident parent unreasonably reduced income by diverting it.
Regulation 71 of the 2012 Regulations
The Upper Tribunal may imply a duty to give reasons for a consent order if it appears aberrant.
Jones v Governing Body of Burdett Coutts School [1999] ICR 38; R v Higher Education Funding Council, ex parte Institute of Dental Surgery [1994] 1 WLR 242
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal.
The FTT's consent order was made in error of law; it failed to consider the appropriateness of the order and lacked the Secretary of State's consent. The father's concession wasn't adequately informed.
The FTT's decision was set aside and remade.
The father's liability for child support maintenance should be based on his 2015/16 historic income (£66,319.62), as this was the correct year according to the regulations.
Similar Cases
DG v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor
[2023] UKUT 238 (AAC)
DB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor.
[2023] UKUT 70 (AAC)
WK v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor
[2024] UKUT 7 (AAC)
LF v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor (CSM)
[2024] UKUT 136 (AAC)