MN v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor

MN v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor

The First-tier Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision to apply a variation for diversion of income, constituting a material error of law. The Tribunal did not sufficiently explain why it was just and equitable to apply the variation or why the amount was appropriate, preventing proper appellate review.

Parties
Appellant: MN; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Second Respondent: ZP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Upper Tribunal, Administrative Appeals Chamber, Post Permission, Substantive Determination
Outcome
Decision of First-tier Tribunal set aside for material error of law; case remitted for rehearing by a fresh tribunal.
Legal Topics
Child Maintenance, Variation of Maintenance, Tribunal Procedure, Error of Law, Adequacy of Reasons
Family Law Administrative Law Social Security Law Child Maintenance Variation of Maintenance Tribunal Procedure Error of Law Adequacy of Reasons

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MN

Appellant

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

First Respondent

ZP

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Upper Tribunal, Administrative Appeals Chamber, Post Permission, Substantive Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First-tier Tribunal provided adequate reasons for its decision to apply a variation for diversion of income under regulation 71 of the Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012
  2. 2 Whether the First-tier Tribunal made a material error of law in its findings and reasoning
  3. 3 Whether the First-tier Tribunal should have invited MN to comment on allegations of income diversion

Ratio Decidendi

The First-tier Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision to apply a variation for diversion of income, constituting a material error of law. The Tribunal did not sufficiently explain why it was just and equitable to apply the variation or why the amount was appropriate, preventing proper appellate review.

Court Disposition

Decision of First-tier Tribunal set aside for material error of law; case remitted for rehearing by a fresh tribunal.

Orders

  • Case remitted to First-tier Tribunal for reconsideration at oral hearing.
  • New tribunal must not include previous panel members.