Case Referred To The Court Of Justice For The European Union

The IMA understands that this is the first case to be referred to the CJEU to decide a question of interpretation of Part 2 of the Withdrawal Agreement. 

Earlier this year, the IMA made an application to intervene in a case referred to as R(BZ) vs The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. The case raises important questions about the residence rights of dependent family members who entered the UK after 31 December 2020 and who subsequently ceased to be dependent due to domestic abuse.  

The case involves two claims for judicial review. The first challenges the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions decision to refuse BZ’s claim for universal credit. The second is a challenge to the Secretary of State for the Home Department’s policy under which some, but not all, victims of domestic abuse could access the Migrant Victim of Domestic Abuse Concession (“MVDAC”) and Appendix VDA. 

BZ is a national of Bangladesh who entered the UK after Brexit, in December 2021, as a dependent of her son, an EU citizen who had settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS).  

BZ was granted pre-settled status as a joining family member, but after she reported domestic abuse and left the household, her claim for Universal Credit was rejected, because she was no longer able to show that she was dependent on her son.  

The High Court is now seeking clarification from the CJEU on whether dependent family members like BZ who entered the UK after 31 December 2020, retain rights under the Withdrawal Agreement, even after ceasing to be dependants. The IMA supported the referral and proposed changes to the legal question to be referred to the CJEU. 

In the judgment, which was handed down on 16 July, Mr Justice Chamberlain highlighted the changes the IMA suggested to the question referred to the CJEU. The case is now on hold pending the CJEU’s decision.