TK v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (CSM)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Markus |
| Judgment Date | 08 May 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] UKUT 163 (AAC),[2018] UKUT 163 (AAC) |
| Subject Matter | Child support,Child support - tribunal practice,Markus,K |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Published date | 21 May 2018 |
| Date | 08 May 2018 |
TK v SSWP and AK [2018] UKUT 163 (AAC)
CCS/1800/2016
1
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Appeal No. CCS/1800/2016
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
Before: Upper Tribunal Judge K Markus QC
The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal. The decision of the First-
tier Tribunal made on 3 February 2016 under number SC919/15/00169 was made in
error of law. Under section 12(2)(a) and (b)(i) of the Tribunals, Courts and
Enforcement Act 2007 I set that decision aside and remit the case to be reconsidered
by a fresh tribunal in accordance with the following directions.
Directions
1. This case is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for reconsideration at an
oral hearing.
2. The members of the First-tier Tribunal who reconsider the case should
not be the same as those who made the decision which has been set
aside.
3. The parties should send to the relevant HMCTS office within one month
of the issue of this decision, any further evidence upon which they wish
to rely.
4. The new First-tier Tribunal is not bound in any way by the decision of the
previous tribunal. It will not be limited to the evidence and submissions
before the previous tribunal. It will consider all aspects of the case
entirely afresh and it may reach the same or a different conclusion to the
previous tribunal.
These Directions may be supplemented by later directions by a Tribunal
Judge in the Social Entitlement Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
1. In these reasons I refer to the Appellant and the Second Respondent as “Mrs K”
and “Mr K” respectively.
2. Over the course of the proceedings the issues in the appeal have been clarified
and narrowed. In particular, there is no longer any issue regarding the decision of
2 July 2014. On 7 April 2017 that decision was revised with effect from 30 June
2014. I note that Mr K does not agree with that decision, but it is not within the
scope of this appeal. This appeal is concerned only with the decision by the First-
To continue reading
Request your trial