ICAS TC Business Law module 5 Flashcards
Walker v Crystal Palace FC 1910
Held: A professional footballer was an employee of the football club as he was under
its control with regards to training, discipline and how he was paid.
Cassidy v Ministry of Health 1951
Facts: A surgical operation was carried out negligently by a full-time medical officer at
the hospital. The hospital was sued by the patient but the hospital argued, in its
defence, that it did not have control over the doctor in his medical work.
Held: In circumstances such as these, the court decided that the correct test was to
ask whether the employer had appointed the employee, chosen him for the task with
the result that he was integrated into the organisation. If it had been the patient who
had chosen the doctor, then the hospital would not have been liable as employer. But,
in this case, it had been the hospital’s management who had chosen the doctor and
had the ultimate sanction of dismissal; and so the Ministry of Health was vicariously
liable.
Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) v Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance
1968
Facts: A driver worked for one company only, delivering concrete to building sites.
Although he owned the lorry he used and was responsible for its repair and
maintenance, he had bought it on hire purchase through a scheme set up by the
company he worked for. The lorry was painted in the colours of the company and the
driver wore the company uniform. However, if he was unable to do a delivery, he
would appoint a replacement driver. He was paid gross and this was calculated based
on mileage and amount of concrete delivered. The Ministry of Pensions claimed that
he was an employee and that the company should pay national insurance
contributions on his behalf.
Held: The test, in such cases, was to establish whether the worker was working on his
own account. Taking all the facts into consideration, this driver was a self-employed
contractor and not an employee. Of particular significance in this case was the fact
that the driver could decide to appoint a replacement driver.
Autoclenz v Belcher 2011
Facts: The contracts of a group of individuals who worked as car valeters stated that
they were self-employed, that they had to provide their own materials, that they could
provide substitute workers and that there was no obligation to provide them with work.
Held: The actual working arrangements did not accord with the terms of the valeters’
contracts. In reality, the valeters arrived at work each day, they were provided with
work and there was never, in fact, any provision of substitute workers. The employer
also provided the materials for which he made a small charge. The court took the
view that the contract did not reflect the actual nature of the employment relationship.
Significantly, in this case, the courts considered the relative bargaining strength of the
parties and found that it indicated an employer/employee relationship.
