LM v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor (CSM)

LM v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor (CSM)

The Upper Tribunal held that regulation 65 applied to the mortgage payments as they were a joint debt incurred before NM became a non-resident parent and were not excluded by regulation 65(3), since NM did not retain the property for his own use. Regulation 67 did not apply because NM had a legal and equitable interest in the property and was a party to the mortgage. There was no procedural unfairness or error of law by the First-tier Tribunal.

Parties
Appellant: LM; First Respondent: The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Second Respondent: NM
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Upper Tribunal Decision on Appeal From First Tier Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Child Maintenance, Special Expenses Variation, Procedural Fairness, Statutory Interpretation
Social Security Law Family Law Child Maintenance Special Expenses Variation Procedural Fairness Statutory Interpretation

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LM

Appellant

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

First Respondent

NM

Second 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 in upholding a special expenses variation under regulation 65 of the Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012
  2. 2 Whether regulation 65 or regulation 67 was applicable to the mortgage payments in question
  3. 3 Whether procedural unfairness occurred in the First-tier Tribunal proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The Upper Tribunal held that regulation 65 applied to the mortgage payments as they were a joint debt incurred before NM became a non-resident parent and were not excluded by regulation 65(3), since NM did not retain the property for his own use. Regulation 67 did not apply because NM had a legal and equitable interest in the property and was a party to the mortgage. There was no procedural unfairness or error of law by the First-tier Tribunal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed