“1. The first-named appellant (“the appellant”) initiated these judicial review proceedings with the aim of making the case a) that he was habitually resident in the State for the purposes of entitlem…”
You're reading the free summary of Petecel v The Minister for Social Protection & Ors (Unapproved). Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.