Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:	2014 UKUT 401 AAC
Reported Number:
File Number:	CIS 2708 2013
Appellant:	RM
Respondent:	Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (IS)
Judge/Commissioner:	Judge E. Jacobs
Date Of Decision:	09/09/2014
Date Added:	25/09/2014
Main Category:	Residence and presence conditions
Main Subcategory:	right to reside
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Reported as [2015 AACR 11 Residence and presence conditions – no right to reside for formerly self-employed primary carers The claimant was a Norwegian who came to the United Kingdom (UK) in 2008 with her children who entered school on arrival. She worked as a cleaner for a shop owner and on the advice of HMRC she registered as self-employed. In 2009 she gave up work at which time she was pregnant. She was awarded jobseeker’s allowance (JSA) for the period from 10 May 2010 to 13 December 2010 as a work seeker, having not been paid employment and support allowance (ESA). From February 2011 she ceased to be available for work as one of her children was in hospital. In March 2011 she claimed income support (IS) as a lone parent. Her claim for IS was refused and the First-tier Tribunal (F tT) rejected her appeal on the grounds that she had no right to reside in the UK. The issue before the Upper Tribunal (UT) was whether the claimant had a right to reside in the UK as a self-employed worker and the primary carer of her children who were in education. Held, setting aside F-tT decision but re-making it to the same effect, that: 1. the F-tT had failed to investigate sufficiently the claimant’s employment status but had come to the correct decision. Applying the factors identified by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Jany v Staatssecretaris van Justitie, C-268/99, EU:C:2001:616, she was self-employed, and not a worker (paragraphs 15 to 19); 2. although primary carers of the children of workers may have a right to reside, the logic of the structure of the Court of Justice’s reasoning precluded the application of that reasoning to the self-employed (paragraphs 20 to 25).
Decision(s) to Download:	[2015] AACR 11.ws.doc