Decision 16650
| Case Number | Claimant | Judge | Language | Decision date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Decision 16650 | Reed | English | 1989-06-12 |
| Decision | Appealed | Appellant | Corresponding Case |
|---|---|---|---|
| Returned to a different Board | No | N/A | - |
| Issue: | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: |
|---|---|---|---|
| board of referees | errors in law | decision incomplete | principal means of livelihood |
Summary:
It has been held in a number of cases that it is an error in law not to consider whether an activity is so minor in extent under reg. 43(2). It is the Board's responsibility to consider 43(2). Six factors are set out in CUB 5454 to be considered.