Court of Appeal in landmark ruling on Zambrano rights and social welfare

The Court of Appeal has handed down a landmark ruling confirming the applicability of EU Zambrano rights in a social welfare context.

In Pryce v London Borough of Southwark and Secretary of State for the Home Department (Intervener), the appellant was unlawfully present under domestic law. However, she is the sole carer of her children, who are British citizens.

Her lawyers, Deighton Pierce Glynn, said the court’s ruling in Ms Pryce’s favour meant she “was and is eligible for homelessness assistance as a beneficiary of rights arising under Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union”.

This was because she had successfully established that she had an EU right of residence under Article 20 TFEU, following the Court of Justice of the European Union case of Zambrano.

Deighton Pierce Glynn said: “This enabled her to be eligible for homelessness assistance because she was not a person subject to immigration control and was a person with a right of residence. This right was not excluded by the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Eligibility) (England) Regulations 2006.”


The law firm said the Court of Appeal’s ruling:

• benefited all persons who meet the Zambrano criteria who applied for homelessness assistance and/or an allocation of social housing prior to 8 November 2012;
• helped Zambrano beneficiaries establish eligibility for benefits and tax credits, as well as to secure healthcare treatment in hospitals;
• meant Zambrano beneficiaries should not be excluded from social services support, “for example under the National Assistance Act 1948 or the Children Act 1989, on immigration grounds because they are not unlawfully present in the UK”.

Deighton Pierce Glynn said: “This case is important for confirming the principle that an EU right of residence confers substantive and not merely procedural benefits. Zambrano beneficiaries do not have to apply for or be granted a derivative residence card before being granted social assistance.”


The Government has introduced new regulations, which came into force on 8 November, that attempt to limit access to housing and benefits for persons applying on or after that date.

Significantly, the Court of Appeal chose to deliver judgment in the case even though the respondent had conceded the appeal with costs.

Sasha Rozansky from Deighton Pierce Glynn instructed Richard Gordon QC of Brick Court Chambers and Adrian Berry of Garden Court Chambers.