Lim v Entry Clearance Officer Manila [2015] EWCA Civ 1383 (28 July 2015)

Lim v Entry Clearance Officer Manila [2015] EWCA Civ 1383 (28 July 2015)

A person who is financially independent and able to meet their own essential needs is not a 'dependent direct relative' under the EEA Regulations and Citizens Directive, even if they receive financial support from an EU citizen. Dependency requires a factual need for support to meet essential needs, not merely the receipt of support.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Civ 1383
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Siew Lian Lim; Appellant/defendant: Entry Clearance Officer Manila
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Upper Tribunal (immigration and Asylum Chamber)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Definition of Dependency Under EEA Regulations, Interpretation of Citizens Directive Article 2.2(d), Right of Entry for Family Members of EU Citizens

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Siew Lian Lim

Respondent/claimant

Entry Clearance Officer Manila

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Upper Tribunal (immigration and Asylum Chamber)

  1. 1 Whether a person with sufficient savings who chooses to rely on financial support from an EU citizen relative qualifies as a 'dependent direct relative' under regulation 7(1)(c) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 and Article 2.2(d) of Directive 2004/38/EC.

Ratio Decidendi

A person who is financially independent and able to meet their own essential needs is not a 'dependent direct relative' under the EEA Regulations and Citizens Directive, even if they receive financial support from an EU citizen. Dependency requires a factual need for support to meet essential needs, not merely the receipt of support.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal by the Secretary of State is upheld.
  • The respondent is not a dependent family member within the meaning of Article 2.2 of the Citizens Directive.