Right to Work in UK Law

Thus, the family member's presence in the UK (and right to work) is relied upon not in order to avoid a ‘clog’ or ‘chill’ on the exercise of the right of the EU national child but rather in order to create that very right itself – the right from which the family member then seeks to derive his own right to reside as her carer/parent.

Under the ECHR, there is no express right to work and there is no right to choose a particular profession ( Thlimmenos cited at §46 Sidabras). In my judgment, Sidabras was a case, where on the facts, the applicants were wholly or very substantially deprived of the ability to work altogether. Furthermore it involved other effects on private life, going well beyond the ability to pursue one own particular chosen career, including public embarrassment as being former KGB officers.

It seems to me clear that, to take an example, if an employee is dismissed on the 1st -Tertiary on the terms that he then ceasesto have the right to work under the contract of employment, and that the employer ceases likewise to be under an obligation to pay the employee, the contract of employment is at an. If he has had no right to work after the 1st January and no right to be paid after the 1st January, the contract of employment must have been determined as from the 1st January,

Second, we do not see any basis for deciding that income derived from the first and second appellants' current employment can establish their daughter's right to reside. The circularity in establishing the child's rights and then the parents' rights is no less apparent in these appeals. Here, the child's self-sufficiency is dependent upon her parents working. They only have a temporary basis for doing so for so long as they have limited leave and are permitted to work.

An EU national who claims to be self-sufficient is not asserting a right to enter and reside in another EU state on the basis of economic activity in that country. Rather, he relies upon his resources which exist independently of any economic activity in the host Member state. Once that is established, his family members have a derivative right to accompany or join him. In addition, the central EU legislative instruments give family members a right to work in that the host Member state.

The common law of England has for centuries recognised that a man has a right to work at his trade or profession without being unjustly excluded from it. He is not to be shut out from it at the whim of those having the governance of it. If they make a rule which enables them to reject his application arbitrarily or capriciously, not reasonably, that rule is bad.

We live in days when many trading or professional associations operate "closed shops". When a man is wrongly rejected or ousted by one of these associations, has he no remedy? I think he may well have, even though he can show no contract. The Courts have power to grant him a declaration that his rejection and ouster was invalid and an injunction retiring the association to rectify their error. He may not be able to get damages unless he can show a contract or a tort.