AE -v- SSWP and PE (CSM): [2025] UKUT 049 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Judge Church on 7 February 2025
Read the full decision in .
Judicial Summary
This appeal is mainly about the proper approach to variations in respect of assets exceeding a prescribed value under regulation 69A(2) of the Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012.
The First-tier Tribunal decided it couldn’t make a variation based on the non-resident parent’s director’s loan of nearly £750,000 (as an asset exceeding a prescribed value under regulation 69A). That was because it understood the wording of regulation 69A to mean that a variation could be made only if it was satisfied that requiring immediate payment of the asset (if money) or enforcement of the asset (if a chose in action) in full would be reasonable. It decided that, while it would be reasonable to require payment of, or to enforce, the director’s loan in part only, doing so in full wouldn’t be reasonable.
The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal because the Tribunal had misunderstood regulation 69A. The Upper Tribunal decided: • the director’s loan was a “chose in action” falling under paragraph (h) of regulation 69A(2), and not “money” falling under paragraph (a); • regulation 69A is applicable not only where payment or enforcement in respect of the whole of the asset is reasonable, but also where payment or enforcement in part would be reasonable (subject to a variation being just and equitable); • when considering whether a variation under regulation 69A would be “just and equitable” it was necessary to consider not only the assets of the non-resident parent but also any associated liabilities. This required further fact finding.