Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2006] All ER (D) 66 (Apr)
Neutral Citation: [2006] EWCA Civ 383
Court: Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Judge:

Buxton, Lloyd and Richards LJJ

Representation Christopher Vajda QC and Ranjit Bhose (instructed by Jeff Lustig) for the authority.
  Nicholas Blake QC and Jane Hodgson (instructed by Chambers Rutland and Crawford) for the first defendant.
  Stephen Knafler (instructed by Bennett Wilkins) for the second defendant.
  Nicholas Paines QC and Eleanor Grey (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the First Secretary of State as intervener.
Judgment Dates: 6 April 2006

Catchwords

Local authority - Housing - Housing assistance - European Economic Area nationals - Authority refusing applications for housing assistance - Whether applicants subject to immigration control - Whether applicants requiring leave to remain in UK - Whether applicants entitled to housing assistance - Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2000, SI 2000/2326, regs 12, 14 - , s 7 - , s 2 - , s 185(2) - , s 13(2).

The Case

The obvious construction of s13(2) of the in practical as well as verbal terms was what its words said: that everyone was subject to immigration control who could not lawfully remain in the UK without leave to do so. That construction extended to the respondents, who were European Economic Area nationals, as they did not require leave to enter the UK, because reg12 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations, SI2000-2326 so provided, but they did require leave to remain in the UK under the because by s1 of that Act all persons other than those with a right of abode required either such leave or exemption from the need to obtain such leave; and the only relevant exemption in the specific scheme introduced to deal with EEA nationals, reg14 of the 2000 regulations, did not apply to them. Accordingly, the appellant local authority had been wrong to refuse the respondents' applications for housing assistance.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.