Discussion archive

Top Income Support & Jobseeker's Allowance topic #7099

Subject: "Baumbastic case" First topic | Last topic
Damian
                              

WRO(Health), Salford WRS
Member since
23rd May 2005

Baumbastic case
Wed 17-Jun-09 02:13 PM

My client is a Czech national who was the partner of a worker (also Czech) until he (the worker) left the UK. Their children were in school so would have been covered by reg 10 (3) of the Imm (EEA) Regs 2006 and she by reg 10(4). However the partner has returned to the UK and has set up home with a new partner and child. Does his return affect her right to reside?

  

Top      

Replies to this topic
RE: Baumbastic case, ariadne2, 17th Jun 2009, #1
RE: Baumbastic case, Damian, 18th Jun 2009, #2
      RE: Baumbastic case, Dan_manville, 18th Jun 2009, #3

ariadne2
                              

Welfare lawyer and social policy collator, Basingstoke CAB
Member since
13th Mar 2007

RE: Baumbastic case
Wed 17-Jun-09 05:28 PM

Not married, I take it?

  

Top      

Damian
                              

WRO(Health), Salford WRS
Member since
23rd May 2005

RE: Baumbastic case
Thu 18-Jun-09 07:04 AM

Nope, bit of a shame. Not enough people getting married these days!

  

Top      

Dan_manville
                              

Caseworker, Birmingham Tribunal Unit
Member since
08th Jun 2004

RE: Baumbastic case
Thu 18-Jun-09 02:18 PM

I wonder whether, when they find out how expensive a mistake that might be things will change. Even if they were still married yet he was with another partner she'd still keep her R2R courtesy of Diatta.

Where Mrs Thatcher failed in imarting good ole family values maybe the ECJ she so maligned might succeed.

  

Top      

Top Income Support & Jobseeker's Allowance topic #7099First topic | Last topic