[2023] UKUT 238 (AAC)

The appellant (from now on “the Father”) has five qualifying children.

By a decision made on 18 January 2016 and revised on 20 April 2016, the Secretary of State decided that the Father was liable to pay child support maintenance for those children at the weekly rate of £180.01 from the effective date of 30 December 2015.

That calculation was based on the Father’s gross weekly income being £986.71 which is equivalent to £51,450 per annum. It did not include any additional income from a variation. The liability of £180.01 was calculated by applying taking 19% of the first £800 of the gross weekly income (£152) and adding 15% of the remaining £186.71 (£128.01).

The second respondent (“the Mother”) appealed to the FTT against the Secretary of State’s decision on 15 February 2016.

On 23 January 2018, the Tribunal (which included a financially-qualified member) allowed the appeal and held that the Father’s gross annual income was £62,712 (£22,941 in self-employed income plus £39,771 in unearned income that was to be taken into account under a variation).

As £62,711 per annum is equivalent to a gross weekly income of £1,202.70, the effect of the Tribunal’s decision was to increase the Father’s weekly liability.

The Father applied for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, which was refused at first instance by District Tribunal Judge Hindley.

On renewal of the application to the Upper Tribunal, and following a hearing, I gave the Father permission to appeal limited to the following issues:

“(a)

What is meant by the phrase “by reference to information provided by HMRC at the request of the Secretary of State in relation to the latest available tax year” in regulation 69(3) of the Child Support Maintenance Calculations Regulations 2012; and

(b)

Can the amount of [the Father’s] unearned income, as determined in accordance with above decision of the First-tier Tribunal, be said to have been correctly determined on that basis?”

I held an online hearing of the appeal on 14 May 2021. I must offer the parties my apologies for the fact that my long-term ill-health has led to such a long and unacceptable delay between that hearing and the promulgation of this decision. I should stress, however, that the hearing was recorded and therefore my recollection of the oral submissions that were made has not faded with time.