header-logo header-logo

21 July 2017
Issue: 7755 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Gaps in EU residency status

UK’s post-Brexit status offer falls short of expectations

Key differences exist between the UK’s offer and the EU’s offer on post-Brexit residency status of EU citizens and their family members, with some people falling through the gaps of both, says Jonathan Kingham, LexisPSL.

Writing in NLJ this week, Kingham points out that the UK’s offer appears to fall short of the EU offer. The EU has proposed guaranteed lifetime residence rights for UK citizens residing in the EU on the withdrawal date or who have previously resided in the EU. However, the UK government has proposed granting eligible EU citizens and their family members ‘settled status’, or the ability to acquire it within a limited time.

Kingham says: ‘Settled status appears to be very similar to the existing status of indefinite leave to remain.’ Moreover, current uncertainty over the specified cut-off date is ‘not helpful’, he says. ‘Any cut-off date earlier than Brexit day would be highly unsatisfactory for people who have moved to the UK since 29 March, for example, to take up a job.’

Conditions for family members joining an EU citizen after the date of withdrawal may be even more difficult. Just like family members of British citizens, partners will need to meet the minimum income threshold requirements, while dependent parents and grandparents will have to qualify under the domestic Adult Dependent Relatives rules which, Kingham says, ‘are virtually impossible to meet’.

And some categories of people are excluded from both the UK and the EU proposal, leaving their future uncertain—including those here under EU ‘derivative’ rights of residence, and self-employed or employed Turkish nationals and their families resident in the UK under measures related to the EC Association Agreement with Turkey.

Issue: 7755 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll