Legal test cases

In a judgment of 15 May 2023 the Upper Tribunal ruled that an EEA national who was a carer for his disabled wife who was in receipt of income related ESA, in circumstances where the amount of ESA decreased due to his presence in the household (loss of some premiums and taking account of carer's allowance more than offset increase to couple rates), had a right to reside as a self sufficient person. When the couple then claimed universal credit, the additional cost of £347.07 a month which awarding that benefit to the couple rather than just awarding it to his British wife as a single person, along with the cost of similar such claims which would also now fall to be allowed, was not an unreasonable burden on the UK social assistance system and therefore the claimant continued to have a right to reside as a self sufficient person and was therefore entitled to a joint award of universal credit. The Secretary of State appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed on 29 November 2024

The Upper Tribunal considered whether VB, a Norwegian national with pre-settled status, had a right to reside for the purposes of claiming Universal Credit because she was i) a self-employed person, ii) a self-sufficient person with comprehensive sickness insurance, and iii) had retained worker status.

Judgment of the Upper Tribunal three judge panel was given on 01 September 2022. The Secretary of State applied for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal on 24 November 2022. The Upper Tribunal refused permission to appeal on 20 January 2023. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the Secretary of State against that decision on 01 March 2024. A claimant whose universal credit claim is decided before they request backdating can simply raise a request for backdating as part of a revision request and that must then be considered.

Judgment of the Upper Tribunal three judge panel dismissing the Secretary of State’s appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal was given on 12 December 2022. The Secretary of State appealed to the Court of Appeal The case was heard in the Court of Appeal from 8 - 10 March 2023. A further hearing took place on 10 October 2023. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was handed down on 8 November 2023, dismissing the appeal. The Secretary of State applied for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and this was refused on 7 February 2024, meaning that the Court of Appeal’s judgment is now final. DWP amended guidance on 3 February 2025 indicating they now accept that third country national family members of EU nationals can also benefit from the judgment.

On 12 September 2019, CPAG issued judicial review proceedings on behalf of a single parent and her children challenging the application of the benefit cap to the mother’s universal credit award. The cap is applied to the mother despite the fact that she works 16 hours per week at national living wage, simply because she is paid 4 weekly rather than monthly. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted on 5 December 2019 and the case was heard on 12 May 2020. Judgment was given on 20 July 2020 with the court finding in the claimants' favour. The SSWP appealed to the Court of Appeal and judgment was given on 8 October 2021, allowing the SSWP's appeal.  Ms Pantellerisco applied for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court on 1/12/21 and this was refused by order dated 04/08/22. 

Current status: The High Court heard the case on 16 June 2021 and handed down judgment in favour of the claimant on 5 July 2021. HMRC appealed to the Court of Appeal and a hearing took place on 25 January 2022. The Court of Appeal dismissed HMRC's appeal and judgment was handed down on 8 February 2022 ([2022] EWCA Civ 120).

CPAG brought judicial review proceedings on behalf of two EU nationals, a severely disabled man and his carer, who were refused universal credit on the basis that their limited leave to remain in the UK under Appendix EU to the immigration rules (‘pre-settled status’) was not a qualifying right of residence for the purposes of means-tested benefits. On 27 April 2020, the High Court dismissed the claim. The Claimants sought permission to appeal and, following the grant of permission by the Court of Appeal, the Court found in favour of the Appellants/Claimants in a judgment handed down on 18 December 2020. The Secretary of State appealed to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile on 15 July 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union, in a judgment which the parties in the case brought by CPAG accept is binding on the Supreme Court, ruled that it was not unlawfully discriminatory to have such a rule (i.e. that the basis on which the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal was wrong). The Supreme Court gave a final decision allowing the Secretary of State's appeal on 1 December 2021.

The Upper Tribunal held that when a worker has worked for over 12 months then they do not need to show a genuine chance of being engaged after 6 months of unemployment in order to retain worker status and the associated right to reside.

This case concerned a judicial review challenging the revised, lower benefit cap, introduced in 2016. The appeal was brought on behalf of two single mothers who are affected by the cap due to their caring responsibilities. One of the claimants has children with significant health needs while the other has previously fled domestic violence. The appeal in this case was heard on 17-19 July 2018 by a 7 judge panel of the Supreme Court alongside that of R (DA and Others) v SSWP. Judgment was given on 15 May 2019 finding that cap did not unlawfully discriminate against lone parents with children under 5 and their children.

The issue raised by this case in the Court of Appeal is whether the UK’s Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006 must be read pursuant to EU law as providing a right to reside in the UK not only to EEA children in education whose parents have been employed persons, but also to those whose parents have been ¬self-employed persons. Regretfully the Court of Appeal has decided that there is no such requirement and an application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court has been refused.