AO v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and JA (CSM)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Jacobs |
| Judgment Date | 17 December 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] UKUT 499 (AAC) |
| Subject Matter | Revisions,supersessions,reviews,reviews - late applications,Jacobs,E |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Published date | 02 January 2018 |
| Date | 17 December 2017 |
AO v (1) SSWP, (2) JA (CSM) [2017] UKUT 499 (AAC)
UPPER TRIBUNAL CASE NOS: CCS/1771, 1772, 1773, 1775, 1776 and 1777/2016
1
DECISION OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER)
CCS/1771, 1772, 1773, 1775 and 1776/2016
The decision in these appeals are given under section 11 of the Tribunals, Courts
and Enforcement Act 2007:
The decisions of the First-tier Tribunal under references SC186/15/00851, 00853,
01401, 01949 and 01950, made on 15 February 2016 at Bristol, did not involve
the making of an error on a point of law.
CCS/1777/2016
As the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (made on 15 February 2016 at Bristol
under reference SC186/15/02271) involved the making of an error in point of law,
it is SET ASIDE under section 12(2)(a) and (b)(ii) of the Tribunals, Courts and
Enforcement Act 2007 and the decision is RE-MADE.
The decision is: the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal under this reference is
struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
For convenience, this appeal relates to the Secretary of State’s decision of 26
November 2013 from the effective date of 20 September 2013. It covers the
inclusive period from that date to 20 February 2014.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1. Ultimately, these six cases concern the amount of the non-resident parent’s
income that should be taken into account through variations in calculating his
child support liability in respect of Julian with effect from these dates:
17 August 2012
24 May 2013
20 September 2013
21 February 2014
23 May 2014
20 March 2015.
2. In essence, the non-resident parent’s grounds of appeal raise three issues.
whether the First-tier Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear five of the appeals;
there is no dispute about its jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the final
calculation;
To continue reading
Request your trial