0
The Court of Appeal has handed down judgment in Ayoola v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 1519, a complex case concerning Articles 24 and 25 of the Withdrawal Agreement, and in particular the applicability of the right in Ibrahim v Harrow London Borough Council (Case C-310/08) [2010] 2 CMLR 51 and Teixeira v Lambeth London Borough Council (Case C-480/08) [2010] 2 CMLR 50. The Appellant is the mother of a British citizen child, O, and O had previously enjoyed EU law rights to reside as the stepchild of a self-employed EU national. The Appellant claimed that she enjoyed a right to reside in the UK as O’s primary carer, pursuant to Article 25, in order that O could continue to pursue education in the UK. The Appellant enjoyed leave to remain under Appendix FM, but she claimed that the Withdrawal Agreement entitled her to leave to remain under Appendix EU.
The Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that Article 25(2) simply preserved such rights as already existed in EU law, rather than creating new rights. In any case, the Appellant could not benefit from Article 25(2) because: (a) her daughter’s stepmother was self-employed, rather than employed; (b) O was outside the scope of the Withdrawal Agreement; and (c) “even if the appellant could bring herself within the category of persons covered by Article 25(2) of the Withdrawal Agreement, that would not entitle her to any particular form of leave over and above the leave she already has” [81].
Julia Smyth KC and Harriet Wakeman represented the Secretary of State.
Click here to read the judgment
