[2025] UKUT 162 (AAC)

The case management directions permitted Father to reply to the responses of the SoS and Mother; in the event, Father did not make any such reply.

Father did, however, send an email to the Upper Tribunal on 3 February 2025 asking for “new documents relating to the proceedings” (relating to Walnuts Investments Ltd – a short letter from his wife, and an “interactive investor” statement; and a statement from Assetz for the 2021-22 tax year) to be “considered as part of my Upper Tribunal appeal, as per rule 43.1(A), The Upper Tribunal considers that it is in the interests of justice to do so”. The email referred to “the grounds that a party was not present at the First-tier Tribunal to answer questions relating to the businesses, namely [Father’s wife]”. He requested a face to face hearing in London. Father’s email advanced arguments in support of a ground of appeal that had been considered in the permission decision and determined not to be realistically arguable (that the Walnuts Investments variation was in error of law). It also advanced arguments in regard to a ground that had not been included in Father’s original application for permission to appeal: it was expressed as follows:

“Double counting; Assetz Capital Income and Halifax Sharedealing Account, the effective date for the calculation was 28/06/2021, the unearned income from Assetz Capital was £24,196.55; crucially this was from tax year April 2020-2021 April. During 2021 to 2022 the only income derived from Assetz Capital was £235.79, this because all the money was transferred to the Halifax Sharedealing account by the 21st April 2021. The FTT took the figure for the Halifax Sharedealing account on the 5th July 2021, a figure which was now much higher than the year before because of the transfers from Assetz Capital. The income has therefore been counted twice because they used income from the year before. As a result the Assetz Capital unearned income was an error in law, the figure used was prior to the effective date. But worse still the transfer of cash across is in excess of £250,000. I am collating all of the necessary statements for the Upper Tribunal. This may make the FTT’s figure even more adrift than the £24,196.25 due to the double counting, something which they are obliged to avoid. They have not.”

It seems to me fair and just to treat Father’s February email as applications (1) for set aside, under rule 43, of the aspect of the permission decision which refused permission to appeal against the Walnuts Investments variation; and (2) for a new ground of appeal to be admitted, namely, that the FTT decision erred in law in making the Assetz variation as it involved an element of “double counting”.