Jody Atkinson appeared for the successful party before the Upper Tribunal in JP v SSWP & LH (CSM) [2025] UKUT 162.
Jody was instructed by the mother. The father was a wealthy individual, but was initially assessed by the Child Maintenance Service (‘the CMS’) at a relatively low liability for child support. This was because the CMS initially assess based only on taxable income declared to HMRC, and will only assess a parent based on their assets or ‘diverted income’ if the other parent challenges their decision. The CMS assessed the father based on his taxable income of £33,736. The mother was represented by Maguire Family Law, who instructed Jody Atkinson. They appealed the CMS’ decision to the First Tier Tribunal. They also brought proceedings in the Family Court for a ‘top up order’ ie. additional maintenance on top of the CMS child support calculation.
For the Family Court to make a top up order the paying parent must either agree or the CMS must have assessed the paying parent as having gross weekly income of £3,000 or more, this was established by the High Court in Dickson v Rennie [2014] EWHC 4306 [2015] 2 FLR 978. The father did not agree, and the Family Court proceedings were stayed whilst the Tribunal determined the mother’s appeal.
Jody Atkinson represented the mother in the First Tier Tribunal, where he was successful in obtaining a result that the father’s assets should be treated as producing income in his hands at a rate of 8% per annum of their value. The total income from assets found by the First Tier Tribunal was £312,565.
The father appealed the decision to the Upper Tribunal. One of the assets that he owned was a furnished holiday let known as the Crows Nest. This was jointly owned with his new wife. The father sought to contend that the Tribunal should have left the Crows Nest out of account as it was a ‘business asset’ and a business run by his new wife.
Upper Tribunal Judge Citron accepted the arguments presented by Jody Atkinson and dismissed the father’s appeal. The judge held that, even where there were linked proceedings in the Family Court concerning top up orders, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction was limited to determining what child support was payable. Once the paying parent had been assessed at having income of over £3,000 a week, the amount of child support would not change, no matter how much more the parent’s income was over £3,000 by. The question as to whether to order top up maintenance was one properly for the Family Court.
The Upper Tribunal accepted Jody’s submissions that, even if the Tribunal had made an error of law in respect of how they treated the Crows Nest, the father’s income was still well over £3,000. Therefore, his appeal was dismissed without a further oral hearing being held.
With the Tribunal appeals concluded, the parents were able to reach a settlement with respect to the other matters.
The judgment can be found here.
Jody specialises in family financial work including wills and trusts. He is able to bring his wide experience in these areas to resolving the most complex and challenging disputes. Jody’s divorce and financial remedy practice focuses on the most high-value and intractable cases. Jody is often instructed by solicitors when divorces involve complicating factors such as:
- Family businesses
- Family trusts
- Overseas elements
- Disputes concerning third party ownership of property (such as by parents or siblings)
Find out more about Jody’s practice here