Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The defendant lawfully applied the correct legal tests, including the elevated protection and proportionality required by EU law, considered comparative rehabilitation and risk, and maintained lawful detention; no material public law error was established.
Source excerpt
Decisions to deport EU citizens with ILR for offences committed after Brexit constitute restrictions on residence rights under the Withdrawal Agreement. However, Article 20.2 of the Withdrawal Agreement allows deportation for such conduct solely under national legislation, and does not require an EU proportionality assessment or substantive safeguards from Chapter VI of the Citizens’ Rights Directive. Procedural safeguards from the Directive may apply only to the extent not inconsistent with Article 20.2. The appeals are dismissed on the proportionality ground, as the effect of the Withdrawal…
Source excerpt
Fertre v Vale of White Horse District Council [2025] EWCA Civ 1057 (31 July 2025)
The Court of Appeal held that a French national with pre-settled status was not entitled to homelessness assistance under the Withdrawal Agreement.
Ali, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWCA Civ 1546 (10 December 2024)
The Court of Appeal held that dependency for an adult child under the Withdrawal Agreement is assessed when joining the EU citizen, and later work does not end residence rights.
Emambux v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWCA Civ 1459 (28 November 2024)
The Court of Appeal held that an EU Settlement Scheme application could not be treated as an EEA Regulations application, and dismissed the appeal.
The Court of Appeal dismissed an EUSS appeal, holding the Secretary of State was not required to treat it as an application under the 2016 EEA Regulations or advise on that route.
Ms Siddiqa did not make an application under the 2016 Regulations (EEA family permit) but instead applied under the EUSS family permit scheme, which she did not qualify for. The Secretary of State and tribunals were entitled to treat her application as made and were not required to convert or treat it as an EEA family permit application. Article 18 of the Withdrawal Agreement did not apply to her circumstances, and there was no breach of Articles 10(3) or 10(5). The appeal was therefore dismissed.
Source excerpt
The requirement of dependency for residence rights under the Citizens' Rights Directive and Withdrawal Agreement is to be assessed at the date of application to join the EU citizen. Once residence rights are acquired, exercising the right to work does not cause loss of those rights, even if dependency ceases. The UK Immigration Rules imposing a continuing dependency requirement are inconsistent with the Withdrawal Agreement and must be disapplied.
Source excerpt
Siddiqa v Entry Clearance Officer [2024] EWCA Civ 248 (14 March 2024)
The Court of Appeal dismissed an immigration appeal, holding the appellant applied under the EUSS family permit scheme, not the EEA Regulations 2016.
The Upper Tribunal held that Chenchooliah’s procedural safeguards were not engaged because no expulsion decision had been made, and dismissed the appeals.
Explore more
