To use the Surinder Singh path, one is not required to be a “qualified person.”

Tribunals that decide whether someone is entitled to benefits often have to grapple with our nightmarish immigration law. HK v SSWP (PC) [2020] UKUT 73 (AAC) is one such case from the Administrative Appeals Chambers. It effectively confirms that a British citizen who returns to the UK with family members under the Surinder Singh route is not required to be a “qualified person” to allow their family a right to reside.

To recap very briefly: the EU law Surinder Singh route basically gave family members of British citizens a chance to bypass domestic law, with its minimum income requirements, English tests and other onerous criteria. If the British citizen could show that they had exercised their free movement rights in another EU country (for example by working or being self-employed for a period), their family members could re-enter the UK with them under EU law. 

As time went on, the Home Office made it more and more difficult for people to use the Surinder Singh route by introducing requirements which were clearly unlawful. For example, you had to show you transferred your “centre of life” to the EU country you moved to, and the British citizen had to show they were a “qualified person” for the purposes of EU free movement law after coming back to the UK. 

In September 2019, nearly six years after the centre of life test came into force, the Upper Tribunal found the test to be incompatible with EU law.

The HK case picks apart another of these unlawful requirements, the supposed need for the British citizen to show they were a qualified person on their return. 

No need to be a “qualified person”

The tribunal said that if the British citizen was required to be a qualified person, it would:

 [deter] a person from leaving their Member State of nationality to work elsewhere by denying them the certainty of belong able to continue living with close relatives following their return.

Forcing someone to work or be otherwise economically active might put them off exercising their free movement rights, which would be a breach of EU law.

It’s a pity this case didn’t come out a few years ago. Whilst it is a great result, the reality is, like other Upper Tribunal cases on Surinder Singh, it comes far too late to actually be useful for most people in this situation.

Limited practical value

The vast majority of people who entered or had a right to reside under the Surinder Singh route will now be eligible to apply for pre-settled or settled status under Appendix EU. With Appendix EU, British citizens are no longer required to show they are a “qualified person”. It requires the Home Office to consider whether a person met the requirements of regulation 9 of the EEA Regulations “regardless of whether in the UK the qualifying British citizen was a qualified person under regulation 6”. 

Like this article? Share on


Related articles

Information about our own complaints process, raising concerns to the Legal Ombudsman and to us

We want to give you the best possible service. However, if at any point you become unhappy or concerned about the service we provided then you should inform us immediately, so that we can do our best to resolve the problem.

In the first instance it may be helpful to contact the person who is working on your case to discuss your concerns and we will do our best to resolve any issues at this stage. If you would like to make a formal complaint, then you can read our full complaints procedure here. Making a complaint will not affect how we handle your case.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority can help you if you are concerned about our behaviour. This could be for things like dishonesty, taking or losing your money or treating you unfairly because of your age, a disability or other characteristic. 

You can raise your concerns with the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

What do to if we cannot resolve your complaint

The Legal Ombudsman can help you if we are unable to resolve your complaint ourselves. They will look at your complaint independently and it will not affect how we handle your case.

Before accepting a complaint for investigation, the Legal Ombudsman will check that you have tried to resolve your complaint with us first. If you have, then you must take your complaint to the Legal Ombudsman:

  • Within six months of receiving our final response to your complaint; and,
  • Within one year of the date of the act or omission about which you are concerned; or
  • Within one year of you realising that there was a concern.


If you would like more information about the Legal Ombudsman, you can contact them at the following details:

 Contact details

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By closing this message, you consent to our cookies on this device in accordance with our cookie policy unless you have disabled them.