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

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

The First-tier Tribunal erred in law by focusing on hours and nights, failing to make findings on practical care, and treating overnight care as determinative; the correct approach requires a broad, evidence-based evaluation of practical care provided by each parent.

Parties
Appellant: LP; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Second Respondent: EM
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Upper Tribunal Decision on Appeal From First Tier Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; First-tier Tribunal decision set aside; case remitted for rehearing by a new tribunal.
Legal Topics
Child Support, Shared Care, Maintenance Liability, Tribunal Procedure

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LP

Appellant

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

First Respondent

EM

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Upper Tribunal Decision on Appeal From First Tier Tribunal

  1. 1 Whether one parent provides day to day care to a lesser extent than the other under regulation 50(2) of the Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012
  2. 2 Proper approach to evaluating 'day to day care' in shared care cases

Ratio Decidendi

The First-tier Tribunal erred in law by focusing on hours and nights, failing to make findings on practical care, and treating overnight care as determinative; the correct approach requires a broad, evidence-based evaluation of practical care provided by each parent.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; First-tier Tribunal decision set aside; case remitted for rehearing by a new tribunal.

Orders

  • Case remitted to First-tier Tribunal for reconsideration at oral hearing in accordance with guidance set out in this decision.
  • New tribunal judge required; previous judge excluded.