Deep dive · Updated 07/07/2026
The Upper Tribunal: appeals on error of law
Losing at the First-tier Tribunal is not necessarily the end — but the game changes completely. The Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) does not re-hear the facts. It intervenes only where the FtT went wrong in law. Its published decisions bind the CMS and every FtT, which is why they matter far beyond the individual case.
What counts as an error of law
- Misinterpreting or misapplying the Act or Regulations (e.g. the wrong test for diversion of income);
- Taking into account irrelevant matters, or ignoring relevant ones;
- Making a finding with no evidential basis, or reaching a conclusion no reasonable tribunal could reach;
- Inadequate reasons — you cannot tell from the statement of reasons why you lost;
- Procedural unfairness — evidence you never saw, points you never got to address (see PP v SSWP [2022] UKUT 286, where a fair-hearing failure was part of the successful appeal).
"The tribunal believed the other parent, not me" is not an error of law. Credibility and weight are for the FtT.
The route, with its deadlines
Statement of reasons — 1 month
Request the FtT's written statement of reasons within one month of the decision notice. Without it, everything downstream is closed.
Permission from the FtT — 1 month
Apply to the FtT itself for permission to appeal within one month of the statement of reasons, identifying each alleged error of law. The FtT can instead set aside its own decision if the error is plain.
Permission from the UT — 1 month
If the FtT refuses, renew the application to the Upper Tribunal directly (form UT1) within one month of the refusal.
The appeal
Usually decided on the papers, sometimes with an oral hearing. No fee. Costs are not normally awarded. The other parent and the Secretary of State participate; DWP is represented by specialist lawyers, but UT judges are experienced with unrepresented parties.
Outcomes
If an error of law is found the UT sets the FtT decision aside and either re-makes it or (more commonly) remits to a fresh FtT with directions. You then re-fight the facts — with the law now settled in your favour.
UT decisions are published and citable. Quoting the right authority in an MR or FtT appeal — "the approach required by PP v SSWP [2022] UKUT 286 at [para]" — signals that a decision-maker's shortcut will not survive scrutiny. The case law digest collects the ones that matter.
Beyond the Upper Tribunal
UT decisions can be appealed to the Court of Appeal (Court of Session in Scotland), with permission, on points of law of wider importance — rare in child maintenance, and the point at which professional representation becomes practically essential. Legal aid is generally unavailable for child maintenance disputes; some chambers accept direct access instructions for discrete stages.
Sources
| Source | Type | Date | Credibility |
|---|---|---|---|
| GOV.UK — Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) | Official guidance | Current | High |
| Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, ss.11–12 | Primary legislation | As amended | High |
| Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 | Primary legislation (SI) | As amended | High |
| PP v SSWP (CSM) [2022] UKUT 286 (AAC) | Case law | 2022 | High |