Amin v Secretary of State for the Home Department

An applicant cannot rely on retained profits of a company as personal earnings where the evidence shows that he was employed by the company and provides no basis for treating him as separately self-employed. The decision-maker is not required to investigate matters for which the applicant has supplied no relevant information. This includes making further enquiries of HMRC or seeking clarification from the applicant where the material provided does not indicate a separate self-employed business.

The appellant challenged the treatment of his income in connection with a 2013 application. He described himself as a self-employed IT field engineer, the sole director of his company, and sought to rely on the company’s retained profits. The issue was whether the Secretary of State had been entitled to treat him as employed by the company rather than self-employed, and whether further enquiries should have been made of HMRC or the appellant. Lady Justice Arden considered the application for permission and the absence of any arguable point of law.

1. Application refused. The court concluded that the application must fail and refused permission.
2. The covering letter and application form, read together, did not provide information establishing any separate business in which the appellant was self-employed as an engineer. The Secretary of State was therefore entitled to conclude that the appellant could not be treated as both self-employed and a director of his own company for the purposes of the application.
3. As an employed person, the appellant could not rely on the company’s retained profits as his own earnings. The fact that he had been treated as self-employed in 2011 did not provide a basis for the different treatment of the 2013 application.
4. The Secretary of State was not required to make further enquiries of HMRC. The decision letter relied on general practice rather than any particular communication with HMRC, and the Secretary of State could not be required to investigate a matter about which the appellant had provided no information.
5. Nor was there a sufficient basis for requiring further enquiry of the appellant. The material supplied did not suggest that there was a separate business in which he could be self-employed rather than employed by his company. No arguable point of law was identified.

The judgment does not state the citation or detailed outcome of any earlier decision. The Court of Appeal considered the appellant’s application and refused permission.