‘Personal scope” & the (Brexit) Withdrawal Agreement

Great stuff from Charlotte and Alice at the EU Rights and Brexit Hub:

Problems with the IMA’s position on Art. 10 and 13 WA on the scope of the WA

This briefing was shared with counsel for the3million in their preparations for C v Oldham (Case J05MA951) a section 204 Housing Act 1996 appeal.

This briefing:

-  engages with the arguments/suggestions put forward in the skeleton argument published by the IMA, in the case described as Appellant v Council A & C v Council B, addressing appeals under s. 204 of the Housing Act.

- focuses on two aspects of the ‘personal scope” issues of the Withdrawal Agreement – (i) the interpretation of the conditions set down in Article 10 WA; and (ii) whether attainment of pre-settled status should be treated as attainment of Article 13 WA status.

More: https://www.eurightshub.york.ac.uk/blog/problems-with-the-imas-position-on-art-10-and-13-wa-on-the-scope-of-the-wa

Worth noting that the IMA has rolled back considerably on its initial position following further analysis of the CoA’s decision in AT. - see https://ima-citizensrights.org.uk/app/uploads/2024/02/IMA-Supplementary-Note-Redacted.pdf

Though that revised position is still not without its problems, I think.

Update: C v Oldham was decided last month.

Do have a look at this from Nearly Legal Homelessness eligibility and the Withdrawal Agreement – two (contradictory) appeals which summarises:

C v Oldham [2024] EWCC 1 found that C’s rights under the Withdrawal Agreement accrued at the time it came into effect, and her subsequent change in status (no longer dependant family member) did not deprive her of her rights, by operation of Article 17(2) Withdrawal Agreement, though not on any other basis.

Hynek v London Borough of Islington held that the Withdrawal Agreement superseded previous decisions on the requirement to be a worker, self employed, or a family member of such. It was sufficient that Mr Hynek had Pre-Settled Status and that he had had such a status at the the time of the introduction of the Withdrawal Agreement and expiry of the transitional period on 31 December 2020.  Secondly, the council was wrong to rely on Mr S being in receipt of Universal Credit as sufficient to mean there was no breach of the Withdrawal Agreement.

Both are county court decisions so not precedent setting but as Nearly Legal notes, they are contradictory in their findings as to law and the Court of Appeal doubtless awaits…