JM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor

JM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor

The Upper Tribunal found that the First-tier Tribunal made an arithmetical error and failed to provide adequate reasons regarding the appellant's travel expenses, amounting to an error of law. The Tribunal was entitled to reject the appellant's evidence on miscellaneous expenses, but the travel expenses issue required remission for reconsideration.

Parties
Appellant: JM; 1st Respondent: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; 2nd Respondent: OM
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Upper Tribunal Decision on Appeal From First Tier Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; First-tier Tribunal decision set aside and case remitted for reconsideration on specified issues.
Legal Topics
Child Maintenance, Variation of Maintenance Calculation, Unreasonable Diversion of Income, Tribunal Procedure, Error of Law
Family Law Social Security Law Child Maintenance Variation of Maintenance Calculation Unreasonable Diversion of Income Tribunal Procedure Error of Law

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JM

Appellant

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

1st Respondent

OM

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Upper Tribunal Decision on Appeal From First Tier Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First-tier Tribunal erred in law regarding the treatment of miscellaneous expenses (office cleaner) in the child maintenance calculation
  2. 2 Whether the First-tier Tribunal made an arithmetical and reasoning error in relation to the appellant's travel expenses

Ratio Decidendi

The Upper Tribunal found that the First-tier Tribunal made an arithmetical error and failed to provide adequate reasons regarding the appellant's travel expenses, amounting to an error of law. The Tribunal was entitled to reject the appellant's evidence on miscellaneous expenses, but the travel expenses issue required remission for reconsideration.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; First-tier Tribunal decision set aside and case remitted for reconsideration on specified issues.

Orders

  • Case remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be re-heard, if possible, by the same judge and panel member.
  • At the remitted hearing, only the issues of the claimed £2,509.37 travel expenses, the overall figure unreasonably diverted, and the just and equitable variation are to be considered.