Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:	2010 UKUT 19 AAC
Reported Number:
File Number:	CCS 2126 2009
Appellant:	DY
Respondent:	CMEC
Judge/Commissioner:	Judge N J Wikeley
Date Of Decision:	27/01/2010
Date Added:	04/02/2010
Main Category:	Child support
Main Subcategory:	maintenance assessments/calculations
Secondary Category:	Students
Secondary Subcategory:	full-time course
Notes:	Reported as [2010] AACR 32 Maintenance assessment – student – meaning of “attending a full-time course” The father was employed at a college of further education as a lecturer at a starting salary of just over £23,000 a year working 37 hours a week. He was also a student at the same college on a two-year trainee teacher course which was mandatory for him to practise as a lecturer. The college described the course as full-time and confirmed that he was attending for 15 hours a week. The First-tier Tribunal concluded that the father was not a “student” for the purpose of regulation 5 of the Child Support (Maintenance Calculations and Special Cases) Regulations 2000 (the MASC Regulations), which provides that students have a nil liability for child support and defines “student” as “a person … attending a full-time course of study at an educational establishment”. The father appealed to the Upper Tribunal. It was not in dispute that the father was attending a course of study at an educational establishment. The issue was whether or not it was a full-time course of study. The father argued that “full-time” meant a course at a recognised school or college where there is at least 12 hours a week tuition, relying on paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Child Support (Maintenance Calculation Procedure) Regulations 2000. Held, dismissing the appeal, that: 1. the phrase “a full-time course of study” is not defined in the Child Support Act 1991 and the definition in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Child Support (Maintenance Calculation Procedure) Regulations 2000 applies only to those particular regulations and section 55 of the Child Support Act 1991, and in particular to the concept of a “qualifying child”, and had no relevance to the separate question as to whether the father was, for the purposes of the nil rate liability, attending a full-time course of study and thus a “student” under a different set of regulations (paragraphs 18 to 28); 2. the First-tier Tribunal had been correct to hold (applying CIS/152/1994) that whether a person is attending a course of full-time study is ultimately a question of fact and the tribunal was entitled to reach the conclusion that the college’s designation of the course was not conclusive of the matter, given the overall circumstances and in particular the employment context, and having regard to the purpose of the child support legislation (paragraphs 29 to 34); 3. the father did not fall to be treated as attending a full-time course of study by virtue of regulation 1(2((b) of the MASC Regulations as he did not fall within the statutory definition of a “sandwich course” as a course consisting of alternate periods of full-time study in an institution and periods of experience at a place outside the institution, excluding teaching practice (paragraphs 40 to 45); 4. although the First-tier Tribunal had dealt rather briefly with the father’s arguments, it made a fundamental finding of fact, based on the judge’s evaluation of the evidence, and explained clearly and concisely why that finding led to the conclusion that the father’s appeal failed and so the decision disclosed no error of law (paragraphs 53 to 55).
Decision(s) to Download:	[2010] AACR 32 bv.doc