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 in respect of a child in shared care by two

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
Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS
Read All
Legal notice: Notice under the Trustee Act 1925

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Emergency lawyers on call as international regulatory actions soar
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
NLJ this week: Employment law’s fine margins
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
NLJ this week: Promises broken on non-molestation orders?
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
NLJ this week: Assisted dying under the legal microscope
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll