2013 05 Migrants

Saturday 1 June 2013

Share This Page

Email This Page

Ahmed (benefits: proof of receipt; evidence)[2013] UKUT 84(IAC) (1) In an entry clearance case involving the issue of adequacy of maintenance, the Upper Tribunal held that it will in general assist the First-tier Tribunal or, on appeal, the Upper Tribunal if, as part of the submission, a calculation is supplied which reflects the comparison between the applicant’s and sponsor’s combined projected income if the applicant for entry clearance were in the United Kingdom on the one hand and, on the other, the amount required to provide the maintenance at a level that can properly be called adequate.(2) Income received and the projection for the figures which the applicant and sponsor have to be able to find should be expressed on a consistent and arithmetically accurate basis.(3)The most compelling evidence of receipt of income by way of social security is likely to be proof of receipt of funds into a person’s bank account. Click here for transcript.

Szpak v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions[2013] EWCA Civ 46, (Pill, Hughes and Rimer LJJ) The Court of Appeal considered whether a worker registration certificate was retrospective to the start of the employment it related to. The claimant, an A8 national, started work in January 2009 but did not apply for a worker registration certificate in April 2009; it was issued in May 2009. He then started work with another employer on 3 September 2009, applied for a worker registration certificate, which was issued on 17 September; this job ended on 31 January 2010. The Upper Tribunal had said that the claim income-based JSA could only succeed if the worker registration certificate relating to the claimant's first employment was retrospective to when that employment started, so that he would have the necessary 12 months continuous registered employment. After considering the legislative framework the Court concluded that that a registration certificate when received had no retrospective effect as to the status of the employer as an 'authorised employer'. Its effect was exclusively prospective. The Court rejected the claimant's alternative argument that the penalty imposed on him in consequence of his late application for registration under the worker registration scheme was a disproportionate one and so incompatible with the European Union law principle of proportionality by reference Lord Hope's speech in Zalewska v Department for Social Development (Northern Ireland) [2008] UKHL 67 in which he expressed the opinion that the consequences of a late registration were not disproportionate. Click here for judgment.

We are top ranked by independent legal directories and consistently win awards

+ View more awards