![[2025] UKUT 162 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
The appeal to, and decision of, the FTT
The appeal to, and decision of, the FTT
The decision of the FTT in question allowed Mother’s appeal against the decision of the SoS of 5 January 2022 (a supersession decision under s17). The FTT found that Father was liable to child maintenance for two named qualifying children from 18 June 2021 at an amount to be recalculated by the Child Maintenance Service, based on the maximum income figure of £3,000 per week. The FTT found that Father had a total income figure of £346,301.76; that was made up of a current income figure of £9,540 (not at issue in the appeal) and a variation of £336,761.76. The variation was
the 8% statutory rate of income applied to the value of Father’s regulation 69A assets exceeding £31,250; this came out as:
£3089.61 in respect of cash held in a Santander and Virgin Money account
£5,076.08 in respect of a Halifax stocks and shares ISA
£56,000 in respect of 50% of the Crows Nest property (this was the “Crows Nest variation”)
£138,964 in respect of a director’s loan to Walnuts Investments Ltd - I will refer to this as the “Walnuts Investments variation”
£109,436.07 in respect of shares held in a Halifax shares account; and
regulation 69 unearned income of £24,196 from Father’s Assetz account – to which I will refer as the “Assetz variation”.
- Heading
- The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error in point of law as respects the Crows Nest variation (as explained in the Reasons section below). However, the error was not mat
- The appeal to, and decision of, the FTT
- The grant of limited permission to appeal by the Upper Tribunal
- The SoS’s response to the appeal
- Mother’s response to the appeal
- Father’s applications
- Why I have determined the appeal, and Father’s applications, without a hearing
- Conclusions