| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
shareholders |
|
|
Summary:
Umpire concluded that the claimant decided to use the facade of a corporation to camouflage the fact that he was working and receiving regular earnings. The existence of the corporation cannot be relied upon to insulate him in this way. The fact that the claimant's wife held a majority share ownership in the company, of which there were no other shareholders apart from claimant and his wife, no other directors and no other employees, during the time in question, clearly brings the claimant's activity under the definition set out in Reg. 43(1). Decision upheld by FCA.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
corporate veil |
|
|
Summary:
Umpire concluded that the claimant decided to use the facade of a corporation to camouflage the fact that he was working and receiving regular earnings. The existence of the corporation cannot be relied upon to insulate him in this way. The fact that the claimant's wife held a majority share ownership in the company, of which there were no other shareholders apart from claimant and his wife, no other directors and no other employees, during the time in question, clearly brings the claimant's activity under the definition set out in Reg. 43(1). Decision upheld by FCA.
