Held, appeals allowed and cross-appeal dismissed. (1) The jurisprudence of the Court of Justice showed that, notwithstanding the right of European Union citizens to freedom of movement within the European Union, member states might specify proportionate conditions limiting the right of nationals of another member state to social benefits in the host member state in order reasonably to limit the financial burden on its social assistance system. Such a condition might be the requirement that the applicant had to demonstrate a sufficient link with the host member state. Whether the link was described as “genuine”, “real”, a “real and effective degree of connection” or a “genuine and sufficient connection”, such expressions were to be interpreted as meaning the same thing. Where a condition required such a link, the host member state had to take into account all relevant evidence as to whether it had been established, and the evidence might include the relationship between the applicant and the social security system of the host member state, family circumstances and the applicant’s other personal circumstances. There was no requirement for an additional and separate proportionality assessment for each individual applicant. The condition of “a genuine and sufficient link” to the United Kingdom was an appropriate and proportionate condition for limiting the financial burden on the United Kingdom, but the requirement for the link to be to “the United Kingdom social security system” in regulation 2A(1)(c) of the Social Security (Disbility Living Allowance) Regulations 1991 and regulation 2A(1)(c) of the Social Security (Attendance Allowance) Regulations 1991 was too narrow and prescriptive to be lawful, so that those regulations were to be interpreted and applied as requiring a genuine and sufficient link to the United Kingdom. While objective evidence of the link was plainly critical, evidence of an applicant’s motives, intentions and expectations was not to be ignored if relevant to the proof of the link and was convincing. Decision-makers and on appeal the courts were entitled to be cautious about an applicant’s self-serving statement, especially if the benefits were claimed immediately on or shortly after arrival in the UK (paras 67–69).

(2) In the first case, the motives of the claimant and his mother for coming to the UK were relevant, confirming a settled intention to remain from the outset of arrival. Account should have been taken of the mother’s relocation to her country of nationality, her requirement of support from family members in England, and her severing of all ties with Ireland, so that the decisions of the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal were flawed. The claimant did have a genuine and sufficient link to the UK when he made the claim and certainly when the claim was refused. In the second case, again the claimant’s motives were relevant, and account should have been taken of her several physical ailments, her requirement of support matters such as mobility, washing, and cooking and the fact she had joined her daughter, a British citizen, who would provide daily care and the fact that the latter was entitled to carer’s benefit. Accordingly, the Upper Tribunal’s decision was flawed since the claimant did have a genuine and sufficient link to the UK (paras 74–76, 81, 84, 85).

Quaere. Whether mere presence in the United Kingdom short of the period of residence specified in regulation 2(1)(a)(iii) of both sets of the 1991 Regulations can be sufficient to establish a genuine and sufficient link (paras 87–90).