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
Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Policing the safeguards when appointing trust corporations
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
NLJ this week: What the court considers when assessing refusal of ADR
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
NLJ this week: Finding innovative ways to fund the justice gap
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Two’s company, but three’s a crowd in financial provision cases
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Charities Appeals Supplement: March 2026
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll