JS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and another (CSM)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Ward |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] UKUT 296 (AAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | Child support,Child support - maintenance assessments/calculations,Ward,C |
| Date | 13 July 2017 |
| Published date | 28 July 2017 |
JS v SSWP and another (CSM)
[2017] UKUT 296 (AAC)
CCS/2014/2016
1
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Case No CCS/2014/2016
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WARD
Attendances:
For the Appellant: Mr M Smith, solicitor
For the First Respondent: Mr H James, solicitor
The Second Respondent: in person
Decision: The appeal is allowed. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal
sitting at Exeter on 16 February 2016 under reference SC194/15/00178
involved the making of an error of law and is set aside. The case is referred
to the First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) for rehearing before a
differently constituted tribunal. I direct that the file is to be placed before a
salaried judge of the First-tier Tribunal for case management directions,
including as to whether the present case should be heard together with the
further appeal to the First-tier Tribunal between the same parties which is
understood to have been stayed pending this decision of the Upper Tribunal.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1. The Appellant is the father (F) and the Second Respondent the mother (M)
of a teenage boy (S). The First Respondent is the Secretary of State,
responsible for the child support scheme.
2. F had appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (“FtT”) against a decision of 27
March 2014 requiring him to pay £55.14pw in respect of S. This had been
calculated on the footing that he had care of S for 175 nights or more. His
contention was that he shared the care of S equally with M and so should not
be treated as a non-resident parent at all, with the consequence that he
should not have any liability for child support maintenance.
3. This was a case under the 2012 scheme and it is with the Child Support
Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012/2677 (“the 2012 Regulations”) that
the case is above all concerned, although in places it is instructive to compare
provision made by the Child Support (Maintenance Calculations and Special
Cases) Regulations 2000/155 (“the 2000 Regulations”).
4. Regulation 50 of the 2012 Regulations provides:
“50. Parent treated as a non-resident parent in shared care cases
(1) Where the circumstances of a case are that—
To continue reading
Request your trial
2 cases
-
CF v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and CG (CSM)
...reg 50(3). Cases referred to GR v CMEC (CSM)[2011] UKUT 101 (AAC), [2011] 2 FLR 962. JS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions[2017] UKUT 296 (AAC) (13 July 2017, R(CS) 11/02(8 April 2002, unreported). RC v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions(Case no CCS/827/2017) (4 October 2017, ......
-
MR v (1) Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and (2) LM
...Upper Tribunal Judge Ward said about the significance of overnight care in JS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and another [2017] UKUT 296 (AAC): 20. … the expression ‘day to day care’ in regulation 50 is a phrase in common usage and does not require definition. Whilst I agree tha......