The claimant a citizen of the Netherlands, appealed against the refusal to grant him housing assistance. He had been unemployed save for taking casual work during the Wimbledon championships, but the Authority had denied that he was a worker. He had also suffered an injury preventing him working.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The term ‘worker’ must not be interpreted restrictively. The court should have considered his employment history as a whole when considering the last six months’ period and in any event the work at Wimbledon should have been accepted as such.
Arden LJ, Thomas LJ, Lloyd LJ
 EWCA Civ 1440
Housing Act 1996 202, Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Eligibility) (England) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006 No 1003), Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006 No 1294)
England and Wales
Cited – DM Levin v Staatssecretaris Van Justitie ECJ 23-Mar-1982
ECJ The concepts of ‘worker’ and ‘activity as an employed person’ define the field of application of one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty and, as such, may not be interpreted restrictively.
Cited – Kempf v Staatssecretaris Van Justitie ECJ 3-Jun-1986
The term ‘worker’ when used within community legislation should not be interpreted restrictively. . .
Cited – Deborah Lawrie-Blum v Land Baden-Wuerttemberg ECJ 3-Jul-1986
The Equal Treatment Directive is concerned with ‘workers’ which is a term of art in Community law: ‘That concept must be defined in accordance with objective criteria which distinguish the employment relationship by reference to the rights and . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 February 2021; Ref: scu.278973