Szoma v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Szoma v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

The Court held that persons temporarily admitted to the UK under immigration control are not 'lawfully present' within the meaning of the Social Security (Immigration and Asylum) Consequential Amendments Regulations 2000, as the binding authority of Kaya v Haringey LBC and the deeming provision in section 11(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 preclude such status. The appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Robert Szoma; Respondent: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Social Security Commissioner to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Income Support, Lawful Presence, Asylum Seekers, Interpretation of Social Security (immigration and Asylum) Consequential Amendments Regulations 2000, Section 115 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
Social Security Law Immigration Law Income Support Lawful Presence Asylum Seekers Interpretation of Social Security (immigration and Asylum) Consequential Amendments Regulations 2000 Section 115 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999

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 2 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Szoma

Appellant

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Social Security Commissioner to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an asylum seeker temporarily admitted to the UK is 'lawfully present' for the purposes of entitlement to income support under the Social Security (Immigration and Asylum) Consequential Amendments Regulations 2000

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that persons temporarily admitted to the UK under immigration control are not 'lawfully present' within the meaning of the Social Security (Immigration and Asylum) Consequential Amendments Regulations 2000, as the binding authority of Kaya v Haringey LBC and the deeming provision in section 11(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 preclude such status. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Appellant to pay costs to the respondent, with assessment of amount postponed