Have I missed something or is there actually any authority for the assertion that you have to claim JSA to glean a right of residence as a workseeker?

Distinguishing between workseeker and someone retaining status as a worker(who does need to be registered)... I'd wonder whether imposing JSA on new arrivals is an additional restriction and as such in breach of S2 2 Euro Communities Act.

Some might be thinking I've been inspired by Counsel's opinion in another case and they'd be right...

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

The classic case on work-seekers in EC law is Collins v SoS for Work and Pensions, which I would be astonished if you cannot find in Briefcase. There is no right to reside for work-seekers under the residence directive, it is held to arise directly under the treaty. The real problem seems to be that work-seekers are not automatically deemed to be habitually resident like workers, and have to establish hab res like non-EU nationals and British citizens who have never lived in the UK. Once they have done that they can then have a right to reside but the right to claim benefits is limited to JSA. This is because they need to demonstrate a sufficiently close attachment to the labour market and I suspect tying themselves to the Jobcentre is one way of doing this.
As you may gather I have just been trying to get my head round this (on a very preliminary basis so far) for case I've just acquired, so this is not exactly expert. I don't think that it's necessarily saying you have to claim JSA - because this case is about JSA being turned down under the Hab Res test - but how else would you do it?

Have you read the comm'rs decision linked to it, I think it was Mr Mesher who clarified it nicely.

It's a bit of a grey spot, and I'm not sure about tying themselves to JSA, as the decision, at least from memory, was that they'd have to establish Hab Res along the usual lines, so Mr Rowland's findings about IS claimants potentially still being workseekers might still stand.

If you're game I might come back on this once I've looked at it again, as I've got a case coming up imminently, although Mr Rowland indicates the IS claim is fatal in the light of reg 21AA, dunno about that yet though.

Cheers