Two mothers won a landmark Court of Appeal judgment against former Premier League footballer Wes Morgan over child maintenance arrears.
In the recent judgment of Antoniou and another -v- Morgan, two mothers, who each have a child with Morgan, are appealing for unpaid maintenance arrears of around £137,000 each from the former Leicester City captain.
The mothers raised appeals after Morgan declared himself unemployed after retiring from Leicester City, the court heard, resulting in maintenance for both children being dropped to nil rate with effect from September 2021.
Both parties claimed Morgan misled the Child Maintenance Service (CMS) in his declaration. In March 2025, during the appeals, a First-tier Tribunal found that his annual earnings ranged from £220,000 to £240,000 over the past four years. Meanwhile, child maintenance went unpaid.
Morgan admitted in a witness statement on 15 July last year that “he knew the CMS decision to reduce his maintenance to nil had been wrong, as he had other rental income”.
The CMS calculates ordinary child maintenance with a legal formula, the court said. It considers income up to £3,000 gross each week. Parents earning more than this can be ordered by the Family Court to pay additional maintenance referred to as a “top up” order.
The ex-footballer agreed to court orders instructing him to pay one mother £44,000 a year and the other £36,000 yearly in maintenance. This was before the nil rate was applied.
Morgan argued that each CMS review or reassessment counted as a new maintenance calculation. He said the CMS’s decision to apply a nil rate made the previous court orders ineffective and under this stance, he opposed the recovery of arrears of around £137,000 in each case brought against him.
In a ruling last Wednesday at the Court of Appeal in London, Lady Justice King, with Sir Stephen Cobb and Lady Justice Asplin, rejected Morgan’s argument.
She said: “The application of the CMS formula system of assessment for child maintenance is intended to provide a predictable, speedy and efficient way in which to determine the liability of a non-resident parent to pay maintenance to the carer of a relevant child.
“It is unfortunate that notwithstanding that being the case, the courts and the First-tier Tribunal have now been involved for a period of over seven years in order to secure an outcome which will ensure that the father honours his obligations to these two children.
“This has been the case, notwithstanding that there has always been a maintenance calculation in place and the father has, throughout, earned considerably in excess of the current gateway figure of £3,000 gross per week, which income gives a court jurisdiction under section 8(6) of the CSA 1991 to make a top-up order.
She added: “For the reasons discussed below, I am satisfied that a proper interpretation of the CSA 1991 demonstrates that there is one single maintenance calculation which continues until one of the events prescribed in paragraph 16 of Schedule 1 results in the maintenance calculation ‘ceasing to have effect’.
“Further, if every review, revision or supersession were to result in a fresh maintenance calculation, the practical outcome could only be regarded as absurd and wholly contrary to the policy imperative which underpins the CSA 1991, resulting, as it invariably would, in recurring litigation, expense and uncertainty, all as a direct consequence of the ordinary statutory review and variation process.”
The Court of Appeal ruled that any changes by CMS only updated existing calculations and did not cancel previous orders.
Morgan’s appeal against one mother was rejected while the other mother’s appeal against him was accepted by the court. All three judges agreed that if all parties cannot come to an agreement, the cases will go back to the Family Court.
Family lawyer and partner at Nelsons Solicitors, Melanie Bridgen, called the judgment “groundbreaking” for the Family Courts.
Speaking on social media following the ruling, Bridgen said: “These families face more than seven years of litigation to get here; children’s needs don’t pause while adults argue over legal technicalities.
“Financial support is a parental responsibility; it should never become a war of endurance.
“This court of appeal judgement is really important for anyone caught in the system.”
