LF v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor (CSM)
[2024] UKUT 136 (AAC)
WK v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor
15 December 2023
[2024] UKUT 7 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A dad argued about how child support was calculated for his daughter. The first court got it wrong because of unclear information and didn't give the dad enough information to fight back. A higher court said the first court made mistakes and sent the case back to be decided again correctly.
Key Facts
- •Appeal concerns the distinction between 'relevant other children' (ROCs) and 'children in a family-based arrangement' (CIFBAs) in child support calculations.
- •Appellant's four other children were initially recorded as ROCs but were later found to be CIFBAs.
- •The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) dismissed the appeal, stating the Appellant's liability could only be superseded from the date of notification (21 December 2020).
- •The Upper Tribunal (UT) found contradictions in the CMS decisions and responses.
- •The UT questioned whether the Appellant was properly informed of the case he had to meet.
Legal Principles
An appeal to the Upper Tribunal lies only on a point of law arising from the FTT's decision.
Section 11(1) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
The Upper Tribunal will only give permission to appeal if there is a realistic prospect of success, unless there is an exceptionally good reason.
Smith v Cosworth Casting Processes Ltd [1997] 1 WLR 1538
CMS decisions are final unless changed by revision, supersession, or appeal.
Section 46A of the Child Support Act 1991
Revision changes a decision from its original effective date, while supersession changes a decision due to later circumstances.
Case law interpretation of Child Support Act 1991
Grounds for revision are set out in regulation 14 of the Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012.
Regulation 14 of the Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal.
The FTT erred in law by not investigating contradictions in CMS decisions and not ensuring the Appellant was properly informed of the case he had to meet.
The FTT's decision was set aside.
The FTT failed to address contradictory evidence from the CMS and potentially failed to provide the Appellant with adequate notice of the case against him.
The case was remitted to the FTT for reconsideration.
To correct errors of law identified by the Upper Tribunal.
Similar Cases
NO v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor
[2024] UKUT 342 (AAC)
DB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor.
[2023] UKUT 70 (AAC)
DT v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor (CSM)
[2023] UKUT 175 (AAC)
LP v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor (CSM)
[2024] UKUT 302 (AAC)