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

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

The First-tier Tribunal made material errors of law by failing to address the minority discount issue in share valuation and arguments regarding cash assets, and by not providing adequate reasons. The Upper Tribunal confirms that, although it would have interpreted the statutory scheme as requiring the 8% rate for asset variations, it is not prepared to depart from the established authority in Cart, which allows discretion to apply a lower rate if just and equitable. The appeals are allowed and remitted for fresh determination.

Parties
Appellant: PB; 1st Respondent: The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; 2nd Respondent: CB
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Child Support Variation Appeal / Upper Tribunal Appeal From First Tier Tribunal
Outcome
Appeals allowed; First-tier Tribunal decisions set aside; cases remitted for fresh determination by new tribunal.
Legal Topics
Child Support, Variation of Maintenance, Assets Valuation, Just and Equitable Test, Tribunal Procedure
Family Law Social Security Law Child Support Variation of Maintenance Assets Valuation Just and Equitable Test 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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PB

Appellant

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

1st Respondent

CB

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Child Support Variation Appeal / Upper Tribunal Appeal From First Tier Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First-tier Tribunal erred in failing to address minority discount in share valuation
  2. 2 Whether the just and equitable test under section 28F(1)(b) of the Child Support Act 1991 allows discretion to vary the statutory rate of interest for asset variations
  3. 3 Whether the FTT failed to address arguments regarding cash assets and double counting

Ratio Decidendi

The First-tier Tribunal made material errors of law by failing to address the minority discount issue in share valuation and arguments regarding cash assets, and by not providing adequate reasons. The Upper Tribunal confirms that, although it would have interpreted the statutory scheme as requiring the 8% rate for asset variations, it is not prepared to depart from the established authority in Cart, which allows discretion to apply a lower rate if just and equitable. The appeals are allowed and remitted for fresh determination.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; First-tier Tribunal decisions set aside; cases remitted for fresh determination by new tribunal.

Orders

  • Appeals remitted to First-tier Tribunal for oral hearing.
  • New Tribunal must not include previous panel members.