Incapacity Benefit - work and ‘De Minimis’

Hail - does anyone know of any decisions that clarify/add to/update/oppose/utterly demolish CIB/5298/1997 CIB/6777/1999 ?

From CIB/5298/1997 at para’ 9.

“The name “de minimis” comes from the Latin tag “de minimis non curat lex” - the law does not care about minimal things or, as the Guide puts it, the law is not concerned with trivialities. This has for centuries past been regarded as a principle of interpretation or application of the law, and has been used as such by the highest courts (see Bennion, Statutory Interpretation, 3rd edn, p 868 and authorities cited there). It applies in principle to any exercise of statutory interpretation or application unless it is clear from the context that a stricter approach is to be applied. There is, in my view, no such indication in regulation 16 or its context, and the tribunal is therefore wrong in stating that it does not apply”.

The (common law) principle can be quite nuanced in other areas of law such as the criminal law or tax law and a court might decide on the facts of a particular case that the principle should not be applied at all, but I’ve yet to see, nor can I imagine, any court or UT disagreeing with the above statement in principle and I’m not aware of the principle not being applied in later IB/ESA cases. 

Andrew Dutton - 02 June 2014 01:31 PM

Hail - does anyone know of any decisions that clarify/add to/update/oppose/utterly demolish CIB/5298/1997 CIB/6777/1999 ?

You want to “demolish” my case? How very dare you :)

CIB/5298/1997 was indeed my case. By the time of the re-hearing the appellant had moved elsewhere but was insistent that I repped. This involved a day trip from Manchester to Plymouth; a hearing arranged during the tribunals lunch hour to accommodate my train times, and a Chair spending 20 minutes pontificating on how they couldn’t believe the chair in Manchester could make such a silly decision because they went to school/college/university with said person and it seemed so out of character. Obviously, it wasn’t at all out of character but there are times to keep ones own counsel! There was also a train to catch :)

A mere 5 minutes was dedicated to establishing that the work in question was de minimis. Much more to it than meets the eye as arthritis led to well evidenced depression and was very relevant to why the appellant was where they were.

However, my ultra sophisticated argument could be summarised as “if she made a sandwich at home for herself would she be found fit for work under IB? If all she did was help out at busy times and made the same amount (and no more) for someone else, then how is that anything other than de minimis, especially as it wasn’t even the majority of the week?”.

The moral of the tale was clearly “never serve your local JobCentre staff!”.

Case was also memorable for the DWP attempt to defend visiting the client on a Sunday morning having waited for her husband to leave, and then theatrically ripping up the benefit book in front of her!

I shall take my leave and go hurt in a corner by myself Andrew! I shall leave you all to speculate on whether my hurt is “de minimis” :)

I apologise maximally, having already hurt the feelings of the DWP today (see thread on sanctions and thank-you cards)

I am such a brute.

I want your decision to stand!!!! I’m looking at a case in which someone rents out rooms to subtenants but does no work at all, not even any domestic work, owing to disability. DWP said it was a self-employed business, and dumped her off Incapacity benefit after taking 52 weeks of it as Permitted Work.

I wondered if ‘de minimis’ would play here - NO actual work! But t’other decision I quote above argues that the actual remuneration should count for something, as well as the amount of work done.

For the rest of the day I shall avoid dispensing more outrage and hurt….😊

This used to come up years ago in relation to what amounted to gainful employment for Carers Allowance purposes.  They regularly backed down when challenged.  Simply renting rooms is not running a business.  However, each case will turn on its own facts.  For example, having a portfolio of properties which required regular administration work and physical collection of rents might constitute self employment.  Simply renting a few rooms in a house while having the rent paid straight into a bank account should not, notwithstanding the de minimis rule.  And, in that context rent should be classified as investment income.