[2025] UKUT 108 (AAC)

Appeal No. UA-2023-000654-CSM

Between:

DL

Appellant

- v -

(1) Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

(2) WL

Respondents

Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Scolding KC

Hearing date: 26 February 2025.

Mode of hearing: Oral hearing, Appellant and First Respondent were present at Field House and the Second Respondent was present by telephone.

Representation:

Appellant: In person, accompanied by his partner (MM)

First Respondent: Mr. Mark Greaves, Counsel, representing the SSWP

Second Respondent: In Person.

On appeal from

Tribunal: Social Entitlement Chamber

Tribunal Case No: SC322/21/00572

Tribunal Venue: Watford Hearing Centre

Decision Date: 6 February 2022

SUMMARY OF DECISION

Child Support Act 1991: What has to be in place for the Court to recognise that a supersession decision has been made under s17 of the Child Support Act 1991 (in circumstances where the decision making is unclear and confused). What happens if this decision does not comply with Regulation 25 of the Child Support Maintenance Regulations 2012 – does that mean the decision is totally invalid or can the Tribunal examine the manner and extent of the deficiencies and the prejudice to the parties when deciding if the notification was invalid.

KEYWORD NAME

CHILD SUPPORT: child support- jurisdiction: child support – other

In cases of confused or unclear decision making, what requirements are essential for something to amount to a supersession decision under s17 of the Child Support Act 1991. Whether the requirements of Regulation 25 of the Child Support Maintenance Regulation 2012 are such that failure to comply with the requirements automatically makes the decision totally invalid, or can the Tribunal examine the manner and extent of the deficiencies and the prejudice to the parties when deciding if the notification was invalid or simply deficient (and so can be relied upon as a decision which can be the subject of appeal).

Please note the Summary of Decision is included for the convenience of readers. It does not form part of the decision. The Decision and Reasons of the judge follow.

DECISION