Tier 1 Tribunal Adjourned and Passed back to CMS

[UKvsTheWorld]

I challenged the CMS assessment of the amount child maintenance payable. Went through the process of reconsideration, but CMS stood by their decision. So I appealed.

Outcome of Tier 1 Tribunal was case adjourned and instruction was that CMS have to provide their legal basis of what gives them jurisdiction to make an assessment and it was suggested I seek legal advice too.

That ex works and resides outside the UK seemed to confuse the tribunal? However, I was advised that as ex is working for a UK registered company and submits Tax returns CMS do have jurisdiction even though ex is non resident? Is this correct? Family solicitor who advised me during the divorce seems confident that CMS can make an assessment.

Have fears that CMS will repeat their previous correspondence, I go to another tribunal which is adjourned again and it becomes a never ending circle. Has taken over a year just to get this far.

This is one of the weaknesses of the tribunal system.

Quite often the tribunal members do not know enough about the law, and they rely upon the CMS reps to educate them.

The answer is provided by section 441 of the CSA 1991:

''(1) The Commission shall have jurisdiction to make a maintenance calculation with respect to a person who is—

(a) a person with care;

(b) a non-resident parent; or

(c) a qualifying child,

only if that person is habitually resident in the United Kingdom, except in the case of a non-resident parent who falls within subsection (2A).

(2) Where the person with care is not an individual, subsection (1) shall have effect as if paragraph (a) were omitted.

(2A) A non-resident parent falls within this subsection if he is not habitually resident in the United Kingdom, but is—

(a) employed in the civil service of the Crown, including Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service and Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service;

(b) a member of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown, including any person employed by an association established for the purposes of Part XI of the Reserve Forces Act 1996;

(c) employed by a company of a prescribed description registered under the Companies Act 2006; or

(d) employed by a body of a prescribed description.''

Can't help you re "prescribed description" without undertaking research I have no time to do.

To Collaborate

Thanks for your time. As per my adviser Ex is under:

(c) employed by a company of a prescribed description registered under the Companies Act 2006.

as they have found the certificate of incorporation on Companies House website.