Former Leicester City captain Wes Morgan is best known for leading Leicester City to one of the greatest achievements in football history, the club’s remarkable 2015/16 Premier League title win. In more recent years, however, Morgan has found himself at the centre of a significant legal dispute concerning child maintenance payments, resulting in two closely linked court cases that have attracted considerable attention within family law circles.
While the cases involve a high-profile former footballer, the legal principles extend far beyond professional sport. They provide important guidance on how child maintenance is calculated and enforced where a parent has a substantial income.
Background to the dispute
The litigation involved two mothers, each of whom has a child with Wes Morgan. Prior to the dispute, court-approved arrangements required Morgan to make annual child maintenance payments of £44,000 to one mother and £36,000 to the other through what are known as “top-up” maintenance orders.
A top-up order is used when a parent’s income exceeds the level covered by the Child Maintenance Service (CMS) formula. Under current rules, the CMS only considers gross income up to £3,000 per week. Where earnings exceed that threshold, the Family Court may order additional payments to ensure children benefit appropriately from a parent’s financial resources.
The dispute arose after Morgan retired from professional football and informed the CMS that he was unemployed. Following that declaration, the CMS reduced his maintenance liability to a nil assessment from September 2021.
However, subsequent legal proceedings revealed that Morgan continued to have significant income from other sources. A First-tier Tribunal later found that his annual earnings had ranged between approximately £220,000 and £240,000 over several years.
The court also heard evidence of rental income, with Morgan later acknowledging in a witness statement that the nil-rate assessment had been incorrect because he had other income streams.
The first key issue: The nil-rate assessment
One of the central controversies in the case concerned the accuracy of the CMS assessment.
The mothers argued that the reduction to a nil rate did not reflect Morgan’s true financial circumstances. The tribunal’s findings regarding his continuing earnings and rental income strengthened their position that maintenance obligations should not have been reduced to zero. As a result, substantial arrears accumulated. Reports indicate that each mother sought to recover approximately £137,000 in unpaid child maintenance.
The case highlights an issue frequently encountered in family law: how maintenance calculations should account for complex income arrangements, particularly when an individual’s earnings are derived from multiple sources rather than traditional employment alone.
The second key issue: Do CMS reviews end court orders?
The more significant aspect of the litigation involved a legal argument about the interaction between CMS assessments and Family Court top-up orders.
Morgan argued that each time the CMS reviewed or reassessed a case, it effectively created a new maintenance calculation. Under that interpretation, the subsequent nil-rate decision would have brought the earlier court-ordered top-up arrangements to an end, preventing recovery of the claimed arrears.
The argument was highly technical but carried major consequences. If accepted, it could have enabled higher-earning parents to argue that court-imposed top-up obligations were automatically extinguished whenever the CMS revised a maintenance assessment.
The Court of Appeal rejected that argument.
In a landmark ruling, the court held that there is one continuing maintenance calculation under the statutory framework. Reviews, revisions and supersessions may alter the amount payable, but they do not create an entirely new calculation that automatically cancels an existing top-up order.
Lady Justice King, supported by Sir Stephen Cobb and Lady Justice Asplin, concluded that Morgan’s interpretation would produce impractical and potentially absurd results, with top-up orders repeatedly ending and requiring fresh litigation each time the CMS reviewed a case.
Why the ruling matters to both high-income parents and family law more broadly
Although the case centres on a former Premier League footballer, its significance extends to many separated families, particularly those involving high-income earners.
The judgment provides long-awaited clarity on the relationship between CMS assessments and court-made top-up orders. It confirms that a CMS review does not automatically wipe out court-ordered obligations. Instead, these orders remain effective unless properly varied or discharged through the appropriate legal process.
For receiving parents, the decision offers greater certainty and protection against attempts to avoid maintenance responsibilities through technical arguments about CMS procedures. For paying parents, it is a reminder that changes in employment status do not necessarily eliminate ongoing obligations, particularly where alternative income sources exist.
Why does the Wes Morgan case matter?
The child maintenance litigation involving Wes Morgan has become one of the most important family law cases in recent years. The dispute addressed two major issues:
- Whether a nil-rate CMS assessment accurately reflected Morgan’s financial circumstances
- Whether CMS reviews could extinguish existing court-ordered top-up payments
The Court of Appeal’s decision firmly established that top-up orders survive later CMS reviews and that maintenance calculations continue unless brought to an end by specific statutory events.
Ultimately, the ruling reinforces a simple principle. Child maintenance obligations should reflect a parent’s genuine financial position, and technical procedural arguments should not be used to undermine support intended for children.
If this case raises any questions or you would like to discuss any other family related matter with our experiencedfamily law team, please contact us here or on 0114 266 6660 today.