GC v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & AE (CSM): [2019] UKUT 199 (AAC) ; [2020] AACR 3

Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Judge Gray on 14 June 2019.

• From: HM Courts & Tribunals Service and Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)
• Published: 20 August 2019
• Last updated: 16 August 2023 — See all updates

• Categories: Child support
• Sub-categories: Child support - other
• Judges: Gray, P
• Decision date: 14 June 2019

Read the full decision in [2020] AACR 3ws

Reported as [2020] AACR 3

Judicial Summary

Child Support – Maintenance Agreement – Non-resident parent; Persons abroad

The appellant (father) appealed against a child maintenance assessment made by the respondent Secretary of State (“the Commission”) in respect of his son (J) who lives in the UK with the second respondent (mother). The father has a son (W) from a previous relationship who is resident in Denmark with his mother, with whom the father has an informal arrangement, made without an order by the Danish Court.

The father argued that the Commission should have taken into account his upkeep of W when assessing his liability for J. The First–tier Tribunal (F-tT) upheld the decision of the Commission not to take payments for W into account and refused permission to appeal. The Upper Tribunal (UT) subsequently granted permission to appeal based on the fact that to their knowledge this was the first case directly raising this important point, and legal clarity was required

Held, allowing the appeal, that:

1. the appellant’s liability for child support in respect of one son should be recalculated to take into account his liability to support his other son who lived in Denmark, under an informal arrangement made without a court order.

2. there was liability under the legislation of a jurisdiction outside the UK and such voluntary arrangements were taken into account. Paragraphs 30-32 explain the statutory mechanism by which this is achieved. Credible evidence was required to establish the arrangement itself. Mere liability under overseas legislation could not be sufficient unless it was shown that the liability had been assumed. That reflected the policy intention at paragraph 7.47 of the Explanatory Memorandum in the Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012. Some evidence of payment under an agreement would be expected (paragraphs 33-34).

3. there was a clear policy intent to encourage parents to come to mutually agreed effective arrangements outside the statutory scheme. The appellant’s liability in respect of J would be recalculated taking into account his liability to support W. The inclusion of W caused the amount of child support to be paid in respect of J to fall from £144.39 per week to £96.26 per week (paragraph 37).

Published 20 August 2019
Last updated 16 August 2023 + show all updates

1. 16 August 2023

   Decision selected for reporting as [2020] AACR 3.

2. 20 August 2019

   First published.