![[2024] UKUT 259 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
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: The FtT should not have decided to proceed to hear the appeal when the CMS had failed to comply with pervious directions.
Ground 2: The FtT wrongly decided that regulation 65 applied to permit a variation.
Ground 3: The FtT failed to take into account that the Family Court had made an order requiring NM to pay half of the mortgage payments.
Ground 4: Regulation 67 and not 65 was the applicable regulation.
Ground 5: Procedural unfairness.
Judge Wikeley was not sure that he was persuaded by grounds 1, 3 and 5 but did not refuse permission on them. The main basis of the grant of permission was on grounds 2 and 4 which concern the inter-relationship between regulations 65 and 67. I cand address grounds 1, 3 and 5 relatively briefly before turning to the two main grounds.
- 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