Falastin Amin v Brent LBC, Wandsworth County Court 2011
A county court s.204 appeal on the issue of eligibility of an EU citizen as a ‘wroker’. While it is not binding, it sets out a clear position which, given the involvement of Minos Perdios in the review decision, could well be of broader relevance. The following report was provided by lawyers in the case.
Mrs Amin is a Danish Citizen. She applied to Brent for assistance as a homeless person. At the time of her application she was unemployed, however, between the s184 decision and the review decision she obtained part-time work as a Customer Care Assistant working 16 hours per week and earning £92.80 per week.
The review decision was made by Minos Perdios (who makes such decisions for a number of local authorities). Mr Perdios, relying on the decision of Social Security Commissioner Mark Rowland in CH3314/2005, found that Mrs Amin’s work did not provide enough income to cover what he considered to be her ‘reasonable living expenses’. He found, therefore, that the employment was not “effective” and, consequently, that Mrs Amin was not a ‘worker’ within the meaning of Article 39 of the Treaty establishing the European Community.
Ms Amin appealed.
HHJ Rylance, sitting at Wandsworth County Court, held that it was clear from the jurisprudence of the ECHR and the decision of the Court of Appeal in Barry v Southwark LBC [2009] ICR 437 (our report here) that the question of whether work is “effective” is to be looked at from the point of view of the value of the work to the employer and not to the employee. Commissioner Rowland’s formula, adopted by Mr Perdios, was wrong.
Many thanks to Sean Pettit of 1 Pump Court and Tony Owen of TV Edwards for the report.