Indeed. And in that brief response to earlier question I was trying to express UKVI cannot object to any particular type of dependency once the basic fact of dependency is established.Obie wrote:Well the case law indicates that dependency can be a choice. An able bodied person can choose not to work and live of their parents income. Provided the person as a result will of their refusal to work, will not be able to meet their essential needs, it will amount to dependency. Therefore i am not sure you are right.noajthan wrote: Dependency as 'matter of fact' - not of choice, or of lifestyle nor of history.
However do note that case related to an EEA national.
I accept it will not amount to dependency , if the funds remitted is to facilitate a particular life style. However choice dependency is accepted. The court of Appeal in SM India adopted the Lebon approach, and i believed that this was also followed by the Upper Tribunal in Lim, which involved the Malaysian family that decide not to use their savings, and decide to rely on the support of family in the UK aswell.
Yes, for example, as per our friend the Lim case.A lovely lady with, by all accounts, her own house, some sort of pension or trust fund, family resposibilities for younger relative & etc etc; yet still a dependent of her adult child and spouse in Europe.
