JH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and LH (CSM)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Wikeley |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] UKUT 440 (AAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | Child support,Child support - other,Wikeley,N |
| Date | 06 October 2016 |
| Published date | 01 December 2016 |
JH v (1) Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (2) LH (CSM)
[2016] UKUT 0440 (AAC)
CCS/227/2016 1
DECISION OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER)
The DECISION of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal by the Appellant
(“the father”), although the effective outcome of the re-made First-tier
Tribunal’s decision remains the same as before.
The decision of the Leeds First-tier Tribunal dated 29 September 2015 under
file reference SC007/14/01445 involves an error on a point of law. The
Tribunal’s decision is accordingly set aside.
The Upper Tribunal is in a position to re-make the decision on the appeal by
the father against the decision of the Secretary of State dated 7 November
2014. The decision that the First-tier Tribunal should have made is as follows.
The Upper Tribunal re-makes the decision accordingly.
‘The father’s appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State dated
7 November 2014 is dismissed. The father’s shared care falls into band
3 for the relevant period, applying regulation 7(4).
The father remains liable to pay child support maintenance in the
weekly sum of £101.14 effective as from 15 April 2013.’
This decision is given under section 12(2)(a) and 12(2)(b)(ii) of the Tribunals, Courts
and Enforcement Act 2007.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
1. This appeal is about the bright line rule that applies to shared care in the child
support system. The present appeal is, in many ways, an exemplar of what many
critics say is wrong with the statutory child support scheme. Two obviously intelligent
and articulate parents are arguing over a matter of a night or two of shared care over
the course of a year. Be that as it may, the parents are entitled to a judicial
determination of their respective rights and liabilities according to the law.
2. In the family courts, decisions about the residence of children and their financial
support (insofar as the courts still have the power to decide such matters) are made
by judges applying a broad set of principles. Those various considerations are
typically described as “guidelines not tramlines”, indicating the general direction of
travel but not prescribing a particular destination. Such a discretion-based scheme
obviously has both advantages and disadvantages.
3. The statutory child support scheme operates under a very different framework.
The formula means the formula, with a narrow scope for variation and only a
restricted role for discretion-based decisions. Thus the child support regime is, by
and large, a system of tramlines, with very limited scope to jump the tracks and head
in a different direction. Changing the metaphor somewhat, the child support scheme
operates on a system of ‘bright line’ rules with minimal flexibility to depart from
prescribed outcomes. This approach also has both (different) advantages and
disadvantages.
To continue reading
Request your trial