Miskovic & Anor v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Rev 1)

Miskovic & Anor v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Rev 1)

The appellants were not 'legally working' within the meaning of the 2004 Regulations as defined by domestic law, and thus were required to register under the Worker Registration Scheme. The registration requirement was proportionate and not ultra vires or discriminatory under EU law or the Accession Treaty. The Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear new points of law not raised below, but the substantive appeals fail on all grounds except the Patmalniece point, which is stayed pending the Supreme Court's decision.

Parties
First Appellant: Patrik Miskovic; Second Appellant: Barbara Blazej; Respondent: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals From Upper Tribunal
Outcome
Appeals dismissed (save for the Patmalniece ground, which is stayed)
Legal Topics
Worker Registration Scheme, Accession Regulations, Right to Reside, Income Support, Proportionality, Non Regression Principle, Discrimination, Jurisdiction of Appellate Courts
Immigration Law Social Security Law European Union Law Worker Registration Scheme Accession Regulations Right to Reside Income Support Proportionality +3 more

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 26 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrik Miskovic

First Appellant

Barbara Blazej

Second Appellant

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals From Upper Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants were 'legally working' under the 2004 Regulations and thus exempt from Worker Registration Scheme requirements
  2. 2 Whether the requirement to register was disproportionate or ultra vires under EU law and the Accession Treaty
  3. 3 Whether the regulations imposed more restrictive or discriminatory conditions post-accession (non-regression and discrimination arguments)

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants were not 'legally working' within the meaning of the 2004 Regulations as defined by domestic law, and thus were required to register under the Worker Registration Scheme. The registration requirement was proportionate and not ultra vires or discriminatory under EU law or the Accession Treaty. The Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear new points of law not raised below, but the substantive appeals fail on all grounds except the Patmalniece point, which is stayed pending the Supreme Court's decision.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed (save for the Patmalniece ground, which is stayed)

Orders

  • Appeals of Mr Miskovic and Ms Blazej dismissed on all grounds except the Patmalniece issue.
  • Patmalniece ground stayed pending Supreme Court decision.