Hakki v Secretary of State for Work And Pensions & Anor
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- THE RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE
- THE RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD JUSTICE PITCHFORD
Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Tax Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The court evaluated whether the poker winnings of the appellant, a professional poker player, could be considered earnings from gainful employment under the Child Support Regulations 1992. The First Tier Tribunal initially found in favor of the respondent, but on appeal, the Upper Tribunal remitted the case to re-evaluate the factual findings. The First Tier Tribunal again ruled the appellant was liable for child support, but this was overturned by the higher court, which held that the degree of organisation in his poker playing activities did not meet the criteria to constitute a trade, profession, or vocation.
Judgment
Lord Justice Longmore:
Introduction
The appellant is a professional poker player in the sense that he supports himself from his winnings at poker. He declines to support his children and the mother has made an application to the Child Support Agency for an order that he pay child support maintenance. He opposes the application on the ground that his poker winnings do not constitute “earnings” from gainful employment. This depends on the true construction of the Child Support (Maintenance Assessment and Special Cases) Regulations 1992 which I shall call “the MASC Regulations” and, in particular, Schedule 1 of those Regulations. On 28 th May 2009 a First Tier Tribunal decided that the appellant’s winnings came within paragraph 15 of that Schedule. On appeal to the Upper Tribunal Judge Mesher decided on 3 rd February 2011 that the First Tier Tribunal was wrong so to hold and there is no dispute about that part of his decision. Judge Mesher went on to hold that, depending on the facts, the appellant could be said to be “gainfully employed” as a “self-employed earner” and therefore be obliged to make maintenance payments on that basis. He therefore remitted the case to the First Tier Tribunal to establish whether that was indeed the position. By a decision of 28 th June 2012 the First Tier Tribunal made findings of fact and held that the appellant was indeed liable to make maintenance payments as envisaged by Judge Mesher. The appellant appealed that decision and Judge Mesher decided on 7 th August 2013 that the First Tier Tribunal had correctly made an assessment. There is now an appeal to this court which is effectively an appeal against both the reasoning contained in Judge Mesher’s first decision of 3 rd February 2011 and the outcome of his second decision.
Legislation
Regulation 1(2) of the MASC Regulations provides that a self employed earner has the same meaning as in Section 2(1)(b) of the Contribution and Benefits Act. That is a reference to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (“the 1992 Act”) which provides:-
“ 2. Categories of earners
In this Part of this Act and Parts II to V below –
“employed earner” means a person who is gainfully employed in Great Britain either under a contract of service, or in an office (including elective office) with general earnings; and
“self-employed earner” means a person who is gainfully employed in Great Britain otherwise than in employed earner’s employment (whether or not he is a