![[2024] UKUT 259 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Factual summary
Factual summary
In 2018 LM and NM jointly purchased a property and entered into a joint mortgage. Their child was born in 2019. The family lived at the property until the parents separated in 2020. Thereafter LM and the child have continued to live at the property and NM has lived elsewhere. NM retained a legal and equitable interest in the property. At the relevant time LM and NM each paid 50% of the mortgage payments.
The initial decision by the CMS that NM was liable to pay child support in respect of the child was made in November 2020. On 22nd February 2021 the CMS varied the decision and allowed a special expenses variation to NM’s liability in respect of the mortgage payments made by him. The variation was made pursuant to Regulation 65 of the Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012
LM appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (FtT) on 20th December 2022 the FtT dismissed her appeal. LM now appeals to the Upper Tribunal with the permission of Upper Tribunal Judge Wikeley.
Grounds of appeal
LM has advanced 5 grounds of appeal:
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to dismiss the appeal
- Factual summary
- Ground 1: The FtT should not have decided to proceed to hear the appeal when the CMS had failed to comply with pervious directions
- Ground 1
- Ground 3
- Ground 5
- Grounds 2 and 4: The inter-relationship between regulations 65 and 67
- The arguments before and decision of the First-tier Tribunal
- The grant of permission to appeal by the Upper Tribunal
- The parties’ submissions in the Upper Tribunal
- Conclusions