Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v HD and GP (CHB)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Ward |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] UKUT 11 (AAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | Benefits for children,European Union law,Benefits for children - other,European Union law - free movement,European Union law - other |
| Date | 12 January 2017 |
| Published date | 01 February 2017 |
CF/393/2016 HMRC v HD (interim decision)
CF/1375/2016 HMRC v GP (final decision)
[2017] UKUT 0011 (AAC)
1
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Case Nos: CF/393/2016
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER CF/1375/2016
Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WARD
Attendances:
For the Appellant: Ms Galina Ward, instructed by Solicitor, HMRC
For the Respondent HD: Mr Adrian Berry, appearing pro bono
For the Respondent GP: Mr Desmond Rutledge, instructed by Central
England Law Centre
Decisions:
CF/393/2016 (Interim Decision)
The appeal is allowed. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal sitting at
Wolverhampton on 29 September 2015 under reference SC053/15/00639
involved the making of an error of law and is set aside. Acting under section
12(2)(b)(ii) and (4) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 with a
view to remaking the decision I find that the claimant Ms HD’s self-employed
activity was from 22 July 2014 no longer genuine and effective.
The question thus arises whether she, as a person formerly engaged in
genuine and effective self-employment, is in a position to take advantage of
the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) in C-
507/12 Saint-Prix. The parties shall, within 28 days of the date of the letter
issuing this decision, file a submission as to whether or not further
consideration of that point should be stayed pending the decision of the CJEU
in C-442/16 Florea Gusa v Minister for Social Protection, Attorney General.
CF/1375/2016 (Final Decision)
The appeal is allowed. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal sitting at
Birmingham on 8 January 2016 under reference SC024/15/03333 involved
the making of an error of law and is set aside. Acting under section 12(2)(b)
of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 I remake the decision in
the following terms:
The appeal by the claimant Ms GP against the decision of 28 April 2015 is
allowed. The claimant remained engaged in genuine and effective self-
employed activity at the date of that decision. Consequently, she was not
disqualified from child benefit on the ground that she lacked a qualifying right
to reside.
To continue reading
Request your trial
3 cases
-
Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v HD (CHB) (Second interim decision)
...in order to retain the self-employed status she previously enjoyed. 2. An earlier decision dated 12 January 2017 under reference [2017] UKUT 0011(AAC) had covered both the present case of Ms HD (as an interim decision) and the case of Ms GP, heard with it, in respect of which it was a final......
-
JK v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (SPC)
...Court of Justice of the European Union in C-442/16 Florea Gusa v Minister for Social Protection, Attorney General (see HMRC v HD (CHB) [2017] UKUT 11 (AAC)). As regards the third ground, the Secretary of State points out as with the fourth ground, fewer than five years had elapsed between 2......
-
DV v Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (CHB)
...her business generated. That is an unexceptionable approach, as illustrated by that of Upper Tribunal Judge Ward in HMRC v HD and GP ]2017] UKUT 0011 (AAC) at paragraphs 21 and 16. I also reject Mr Kelly’s submission that the tribunal treated the low level of remuneration as determinative. ......