![[2025] UKUT 162 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
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 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 material, as it did not affect the child support maintenance payable. I therefore decline to set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision under section 12(2)(a) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
In what follows I also refuse two applications of the Appellant, as explained more fully below.
REASONS FOR DECISION
References in what follows to
“regulations” are to the Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012
“sections” and “Schedules” are to sections and Schedules of the Child Support Act 1991
numbers in square brackets are to the numbered paragraphs of the First-tier Tribunal (the “FTT”)’s statement of reasons in this case
“rules” are to rules of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008
“Father” are to the appellant
“Mother” are to the second respondent
the “SoS” are to the first respondent.
- 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