Decision 18068
| Case Number | Claimant | Judge | Language | Decision date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Decision 18068 | Reed | English | 1990-05-29 |
| Decision | Appealed | Appellant | Corresponding Case |
|---|---|---|---|
| Allowed | 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:
The main reason the Board's decision cannot stand is that it committed an error of law in not considering whether, despite the fact that the claimant was engaged in a co-adventure, that activity was so minor in extent as to fall under reg. 43(2).