PP v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and SP (CSM)[2022] UKUT 286 (AAC)

Jody Atkinson appeared for the father in this appeal to the Upper Tribunal, instructed by Stowe Family Law. The father had a road haulage business which he ran through a limited company. The mother complained about the amount of child support that the father was paying and appealed to the First Tier Tribunal.

The father (who at that point was unrepresented) failed to comply with all of the First Tier Tribunal’s directions. The First Tier Tribunal decided that the father should be treated as ‘diverting his income’, because he had decided to buy new trucks rather than paying himself higher dividends. The Tribunal increased his assessable income by £134,000, creating many thousands of pounds of child support arrears.

At this point the father sought legal representation, and appealed to the Upper Tribunal. Jody was able to persuade the Upper Tribunal to overturn the First Tier Tribunal decision on the grounds that a finding that the father had diverted £134,000 of income was one that no reasonable Tribunal could have reached. The case will now be reheard and the Tribunal will decide what the correct level of maintenance should be. At that hearing the Tribunal will also be able to take into account the father’s contentions concerning ‘shared care’ of the child for whom maintenance is sought.

This appeal also established that when assessing ‘unearned income’ from a rental property, the CMS and a Tribunal on appeal must both use the income figures supplied by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs; they are not permitted to use different figures, even if the HMRC figures appear to them to be ‘wrong’.