header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
24 May 2012
Issue: 7515 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Social security—Child tax credit—No-splitting rule

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Humphreys v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2012] UKSC 18, [2012] All ER (D) 124 (May)

Supreme Court, Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson and Lord Reed SCJJ, 16 May 2012

The provisions of the Child Tax Credit Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/2007) (the regulations), providing that the payment of child tax credit in respect of a child in shared care by two parents is to be made to the parent with main responsibility for the child, is a reasonable rule for the state to adopt and the indirect sex-discrimination in favour of women is justified.

Richard Drabble QC and Sasha Blackmore (instructed by Ford Simey LLP) for the father. Jason Copple and Katherine Eddy (instructed by HMRC) for the Revenue.

Child tax credit (CTC) was introduced by the Tax Credits Act 2002 and was payable to one person only in respect of each child, even where the care of the child was shared between separated parents. The regulations, as amended, provided that the payment of CTC

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll