AT v London Borough of Hillingdon & Anor

AT v London Borough of Hillingdon & Anor

Although the First-tier Tribunal failed to apply EU law correctly by not considering the broader scope of Article 13(2) of Directive 2004/38, its findings that Ms T was not dependent on Mr M and lacked sufficient resources were unassailable. Therefore, the error was immaterial and the outcome would have been the same.

Parties
Appellant: AT; First Respondent: London Borough of Hillingdon; Second Respondent: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Upper Tribunal Decision Following Appeal From First Tier Tribunal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Right to Reside, Retained Rights of Residence, Dependency, Directive 2004/38, Immigration (european Economic Area) Regulations 2016
Immigration Social Security EU Law Right to Reside Retained Rights of Residence Dependency Directive 2004/38 Immigration (european Economic Area) Regulations 2016

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AT

Appellant

London Borough of Hillingdon

First Respondent

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Upper Tribunal Decision Following Appeal From First Tier Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Ms T retained a right of residence under EU law following the divorce of her son from an EEA national
  2. 2 Whether the First-tier Tribunal erred in law by failing to apply Article 13(2) of Directive 2004/38
  3. 3 Whether Ms T was dependent on Mr M for the purposes of EU law

Ratio Decidendi

Although the First-tier Tribunal failed to apply EU law correctly by not considering the broader scope of Article 13(2) of Directive 2004/38, its findings that Ms T was not dependent on Mr M and lacked sufficient resources were unassailable. Therefore, the error was immaterial and the outcome would have been the same.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No change to First-tier Tribunal decision
  • No right to housing benefit for Ms T