PB v 1) The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 2) CB: [2026] UKUT 61 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Judges West, Jones and Butler on 6 February 2026.
Read the full decision in .
Judicial Summary
In RC v CMEC (CSM) [2011] AACR 38 (“Cart”), a two-judge panel of the Upper Tribunal decided that the requirement in section 28F(1)(b) of the Child Support Act 1991 for variations to child support calculations to be just and equitable, precludes taking an all or nothing approach towards them. The Upper Tribunal decided in Cart that an assets variation may be agreed using a lower rate than the (8%) statutory rate of interest given in regulation 18(5) of the Child Support (Variations) Regulations 2000. The decision in Cart has been followed and applied in a range of published Upper Tribunal decisions and in other decisions made by the Upper Tribunal. The 8% rate has been replicated in regulation 69A(7) of the Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012.
A three-judge panel was convened to determine PB’s appeals on the basis that the Secretary of State argued the line of authority established in Cart, was wrongly decided.
The three-judge panel confirms that had it been asked to decide the issue without the benefit of any prior case law, it would have interpreted section 28F of the Child Support Act 1991 and Schedule 4B to that Act as requiring an assets variation under regulation 69A of the Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012 to be agreed applying the 8% statutory rate of interest, and not permitting an assets variation to be agreed applying a lower rate of interest.
The three-judge panel declines, however, to conclude that the approach established in Cart and followed in subsequent Upper Tribunal decisions, was wrongly decided; see Secretary of State for Justice v RB [2010] UKUT 454, HMRC v Noor [2013] UKUT 071 (TCC) and Gilchrist v Revenue and Customs [2014] UKUT 169 (TCC)). The three-judge panel therefore confirms that Cart should continue to be followed when considering variations for assets under regulation 69A.
The three-judge panel concludes that the First-tier Tribunal deciding the appeals about PB’s child maintenance liability for his children made material errors of law by failing to address, in its decisions and Statement of Reasons, arguments raised at the hearing on behalf of PB and by CB. The three-judge panel remits the appeals to a new First-tier Tribunal for fresh determination.