Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:	2008 19
Reported Number:	R(CS)3/09
File Number:	CCS 1192 2008
Appellant:	Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Respondent:	RH
Judge/Commissioner:	Judge E. A. L. Bano
Date Of Decision:	20/11/2008
Date Added:	01/12/2008
Main Category:	Child support
Main Subcategory:	calculation of income
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Calculation of income – child tax credit payable to non-resident parent’s partner – whether absence of words “shall be treated as the income of the non-resident parent” from paragraph 13A of the Schedule to the Child Support (Maintenance Calculations and Special Cases) Regulations 2000 renders provision meaningless Following an application for a maintenance calculation made by the parent with care, the non-resident parent disclosed that, in addition to other income, child tax credit was payable to his partner in respect of her daughter. The amount of child tax credit included a disability premium, and the non-resident parent contended that in those circumstances it should not be included in his assessable income for the purposes of calculating his maintenance liability. That contention was rejected by the decision-maker. The non-resident parent appealed and an appeal tribunal allowed his appeal, on the basis that the words “shall be treated as the income of the non-resident parent” were missing from the reference to child tax credits of a non-resident parent or his partner in paragraph 13A of the Schedule to the Child Support (Maintenance Calculations and Special Cases) Regulations 2000, whereas they appeared elsewhere in the Schedule. The Secretary of State appealed to the Commissioner. Before the Commissioner it was argued for the non-resident parent that paragraph 13A as worded was meaningless and devoid of effect. Held, allowing the appeal, that: 1. the words “shall be treated as the income of the non-resident parent” had not been accidentally omitted from paragraph 13A but were unnecessary where the whole of such income was to be treated as that of the non-resident parent, since paragraph 1 of the Schedule provides that the net weekly income of the non-resident parent is the aggregate of the net weekly income of that parent “provided for in this Schedule” (paragraph 8); 2. where the words appear elsewhere in the Schedule that is because the payments covered by those paragraphs are only treated as income of the non-resident parent in certain circumstances or cases (paragraph 8); 3. even if the words “shall be treated as the income of the non-resident parent” had been accidentally omitted from paragraph 13A, those words could be implied into the legislation if not to do so would deprive the provision of all meaning (Adler v George [1964] 2 QB 7, [1964] 2 WLR 542 cited) (paragraph 9).
Decision(s) to Download:	R(CS) 3-09 bv.doc