MRW v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor

MRW v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor

The First-tier Tribunal erred in law by failing to provide adequate reasons for using the 2014/15 historic income figure for diverted income, failing to explain its treatment of retained profits (potential double counting), and failing to make adequate findings or provide reasons regarding the father's post-February 2021 income. These errors were material and required the decision to be set aside and remitted for reconsideration.

Parties
Appellant: MRW; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Second Respondent: NT
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Upper Tribunal Judgment on Appeal From First Tier Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; First-tier Tribunal decision set aside and remitted for rehearing by a new panel.
Legal Topics
Child Maintenance, Diverted Income, Tribunal Procedure, Variation of Child Support, Evidence and Inference
Family Law Social Security Law Child Maintenance Diverted Income Tribunal Procedure Variation of Child Support Evidence and Inference

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

Parties

MRW

Appellant

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

First Respondent

NT

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Upper Tribunal Judgment on Appeal From First Tier Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First-tier Tribunal erred in law in its assessment of diverted income for child maintenance purposes
  2. 2 Whether the First-tier Tribunal provided adequate reasons for its findings on income, capital allowances, dividends, retained profits, and post-February 2021 work status
  3. 3 Whether there was double counting in the assessment of retained profits and other income

Ratio Decidendi

The First-tier Tribunal erred in law by failing to provide adequate reasons for using the 2014/15 historic income figure for diverted income, failing to explain its treatment of retained profits (potential double counting), and failing to make adequate findings or provide reasons regarding the father's post-February 2021 income. These errors were material and required the decision to be set aside and remitted for reconsideration.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • The case is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for reconsideration at an oral hearing.
  • No member of the previous panel to be involved in the rehearing.