[2025] UKUT 027 (AAC)

A failure to give adequate reasons for a decision amounts to an error of law, even if the decision itself is sound. The extent of a tribunal’s duty to give reasons, and what amounts to “adequacy” was explained by Lord Brown in his summary of the authorities in paragraph [36] of South Bucks DC v Porter (No.2) [2004] UKHL 33, [2004] 1 WLR 1953 as follows:

“The reasons for a decision must be intelligible and they must be adequate. They must enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the “principal important controversial issues”, disclosing how any issue of law or fact was resolved. Reasons can be briefly stated, the degree of particularity required depending entirely on the nature of the issues falling for decision. The reasoning must not give rise to a substantial doubt as to whether the decision-maker erred in law, for example by misunderstanding some relevant policy or some other important matter or by failing to reach a rational decision on relevant grounds.”

Given what I have said above under the heading ‘The Tribunal’s fact finding’, and given Lord Brown’s explanation of what adequacy means, it will already be apparent that I consider the Tribunal’s reasons for its decision on the 2020 CMS Decision to be inadequate. I needn’t analyse this any further.

In relation to the Tribunal’s decision on the 2022 CMS Decision, all that the Tribunal said was:

“Regarding the second appeal, I found on the totality of the evidence before me that [the Father] is liable to pay the sum of £42.71 per week child maintenance in respect of [his daughter].”

This is a statement of what was decided. As a statement of the reasons for the Tribunal’s decision on the appeal against the 2022 CMS Decision it is plainly inadequate. That is because it provides no reasons at all.

Because I have decided to remit these cases to the First-tier Tribunal for re-hearing, and because I don’t want to risk them coming back to the Upper Tribunal a third time, I shall now give some brief guidance on what will need to be covered by the judge hearing the remitted appeals for their reasons to meet the required standard of “adequacy”.