[2025] UKUT 162 (AAC)

In its response, the SoS supported the appeal on the permitted ground. It submitted that, although Father was over the weekly income set out in paragraph 10(3) of Schedule 1, the Crows Nest error of law was still material; it cited s8(6) and Dickson v Rennie; it submitted that it was essential that the correct calculation of child maintenance liability was made, to prevent an incorrect gross weekly income figure being used to calculate additional provisions that the parent with care may receive.

The SoS asked the Upper Tribunal to set the FTT decision aside and remit the appeal for rehearing by a differently constituted FTT.