Conclusions
CONCLUSION
I would dismiss this appeal on Ground 1. The Appellant is not residing in the UK on the basis of the Withdrawal Agreement and is not entitled to protection by Article 23. Ground 2 does not arise for determination in light of my conclusion on Ground 1.
Lord Justice Newey:
I agree.
Lord Justice Underhill:
I agree that this appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by Whipple LJ. In my view it is quite clear that the Appellant was not entitled under the Withdrawal Agreement to the rights which she claims, and I do not believe that a reference to the CJEU is necessary.
- Heading
- Lady Justice Whipple INTRODUCTION
- BACKGROUND
- The EU Settlement Scheme
- Housing Assistance
- LEGAL FRAMEWORK
- Rights of Residence under EU law
- The Withdrawal Agreement
- “ Article 10 Personal scope
- “ Article 13 Residence rights
- “ Article 15 Right of permanent residence
- “ Article 18 Issuance of residence documents
- “ Article 23 Equal treatment
- THE JUDGMENT BELOW
- THE ISSUES
- GROUND 1 Approach to Interpretation of the Withdrawal Agreement
- ‘ Article 31
- Article 32
- Purpose of the Withdrawal Agreement
- Article 13
- Article 18
- Article 23
- Ancillary Points on Ground 1
- Conclusion on Ground 1
- Reference to CJEU
- GROUND 2
- Conclusions
![CA-2024-001773 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1057](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_Sjvxvlx.png)