• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/22

Click to flip

Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;

Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;

H to show hint;

A reads text to speech;

22 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

Yewens v Noakes 1880

Authority for the Control test. This test posits that the more control an employer exercises, the more likely it is that the other party will be an employee.

Cassidy v Ministry of Health 1951

Control test seen as inflexible, and often obsolete. In some cases, a person is clearly an employee even though this would contradict the test.


Here, a hospital was found vicariously liable even though there was only limited control over the doctor who performed the negligent operation.

Argent v Minister for Social Security 1968

Control test seen as inflexible, and often obsolete. In some cases, a person is clearly an employee even though this would contradict the test. Control is non-conclusive but is still an important factor to be taken into consideration.


An art teacher was allowed to teach what he wished with no prescribed syllabus subject only to occasional visits by the Director of Drama Studies to his classes. He was found to be self-employed.

Stevenson, Jordan and Harrison v MacDonald and Evans 1952

Authority for the organisation or integration test


The question posed here is whether or not the worker is fully integrated within the organisation, or whether they are merely auxiliary to it. Again, like the control test, problems have arisen as the working population has changed in both complexity and structure, e.g. the growth of cottage industries.

Whittaker v Minister of Pensions 1967

Authority for the organisation or integration test


Here, a trapeze artist was help to be fully integrated within a circus and therefore, a servant in that she assisted with many tasks beside the main show.

Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions 1968

Authority for the Multiple or Economic Reality Test


Here, the court had to consider the status of X who drove a concrete mixer. He was responsible for hiring, insuring and running the lorry and was y the company on the basis of his mileage. The company exercised control over uniform and colours of the lorry, but despite this, the court held the driver to be an independent contractor.

Warner Holidays Ltd v Secretary of State for Social Services 1983

Developed the 'Multiple' or 'Economic Reality' Test


McNeil J set out a list of points a court should consider in determining the economic reality of any particular relationship.


The points were as follows:


1. Level of control


2. Provision of tools and equipment: Ready Mixed)


3. Salary


4. Tax, PAYE, national insurance


5. Sick Pay


6. Bearing the risk of profit and loss


7. Residual Control


8. Control over hours of work


9. Right/Ability to do other work: Argent v Minister of Social Security 1968


10. How parties describe their relationship


11. Mutuality of Obligations

Massey v Crown Life Insurance 1978


Ferguson v John Dawson 1976

Factor in the Multiple or Economic Reality Test: how parties describe their relationship


The court made it clear that the use of labels by either party as to the relationship would not be conclusive. It is just a factor to be considered.

O'Kelly v Trusthouse Forte 1984

Factor in the Multiple or Economic Reality Test: mutuality of obligations


Here, it concerned a casual waiter found not to be an employee on the grounds that he had no obligation to work, nor did his employers have any obligation to provide him with work.

Market Investigations v Minister of Social Security 1969

MacKenna J. laid down a three-stage test to consider when evaluating the status of the worker. The factors to be examined here are: 1. remuneration; 2. control; and 3. whether or not the other provisions of the contract are consistent with a contract of service. From this statement that, 'He who owns the assets and bears the risk is unlikely to be a servant' it can be seen that the economic realities (e.g. profits, losses, etc.), of the situation are paramount.


Here, it was found that the driver was in business on his own account and that, therefore, he was an independent contractor.

JGE v Trustees of the Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust 2012

A Relationship Akin to Employment


Here, the claimant sought damages for sexual abuse and rape carried out by a parish priest whilst she was living in a children's home run by nuns. The court accepted that the priest was not an employee of the Roman Catholic diocese but took the radical step of extending vicarious liability to a relationship 'akin to employment'. The test was whether the relationship of the diocese and the priest was so close in character to one of employer/employee that it was just and fair to hold the diocese vicariously liable.

Various Claimants v Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools 2012

A Relationship Akin to Employment


Here, the Institute, an unincorporated association of lay brothers of the Catholic Church, was held vicariously liable for the acts of brothers supplied to teach in a residential school who abused pupils. Lord Phillips stated that the policy underlying vicarious liability 'is to ensure, so far as it is fair, just and reasonable, that liability for a tortious wrong is borne by a defendant with the means to compensate the victim'.

Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v Coggins and Griffiths

The House of Lords stated that, as a general rule, the employer would remain vicariously liable and that it would be difficult for him to rebut this presumption.


Much emphasis is placed on the level of control enjoyed by the hirer over the worker and the provision of equipment.


Here, it involved the hire of X, a crane driver, and his crane to H, a firm of stevedores, under a contract that specified that X was to be a servant of H. X's wages continued to be paid by the original employer and although H could instruct him as to the work to be done on a day to day basis, they did not tell him how to operate his crane. Taking all these factors into account, with particular emphasis on control, the House of Lords found that X was still and employee of E.

Viasystems Ltd v Thermal Transfer Ltd and Others 2005

The Court of Appeal found that, in certain circumstances, given there is no binding authority against the concept of dual vicarious liability, it is possible for two parties to be vicariously liable for the actions of the same, negligent employee. Dual liability might occur where an employee is lent or transferred to work for another and both employers are entitled, and obliged, to control the employee's actions so as to prevent the negligent act.

Limpus v London General Omnibus 1862

An act is done 'in the course of employment' if:


1. it is expressly or impliedly authorised by the employer; or


2. it is incidental to the carrying out of the employee's proper duties; or


3. it is an unauthorised way of doing something authorised by the employer.


The plaintiff was injured as a result of a bus driver's racing his bus with another driver. The employer was vicariously liable.

Bayley v Machester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway 1873

An act is done 'in the course of employment' if:


1. it is expressly or impliedly authorised by the employer; or


2. it is incidental to the carrying out of the employee's proper duties; or


3. it is an unauthorised way of doing something authorised by the employer.


An over-zealous railway porter charged with ensuring that customers were on the correct train, injured the plaintiff whilst pulling him from the correct train.

Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Transport Board 1942

An act is done 'in the course of employment' if:


1. it is expressly or impliedly authorised by the employer; or


2. it is incidental to the carrying out of the employee's proper duties; or


3. it is an unauthorised way of doing something authorised by the employer.


A lorry driver caused an explosion by carelessly smoking a cigarette whilst filling his lorry with petrol.

Joel v Morrison 1834

An employee's act is not in the course of employment if he is deemed to have been on a 'frolic of his own' and the employer will not be vicariously liable. This is so if an employee acts outside the scope of his employment, i.e. does something he is not authorised to do or performs an act he is expressly prohibited from carrying out.

Bear v London General Omnibus 1900

An employee's act is not in the course of employment if he is deemed to have been on a 'frolic of his own' and the employer will not be vicariously liable. This is so if an employee acts outside the scope of his employment, i.e. does something he is not authorised to do or performs an act he is expressly prohibited from carrying out.


A bus conductor, with delusions of grandeur, attempted to drive a bus and in doing so managed to run over the plaintiff.

Daniels v Whetstone Entertainments Ltd 1962

An employee's act is not in the course of employment if he is deemed to have been on a 'frolic of his own' and the employer will not be vicariously liable. This is so if an employee acts outside the scope of his employment, i.e. does something he is not authorised to do or performs an act he is expressly prohibited from carrying out.


An employee (a bouncer) assaulted the plaintiff twice - once during the course of a fracas inside his employer's premises, and a second time outside the night club. Whilst the employers were held liable for the first assault inside the club, they evaded liability for the second. This was seen as an act of personal revenge and was, therefore, outside the course employment.

Keppel Bus Co v Saab Bin Ahmad 1974

An employee's act is not in the course of employment if he is deemed to have been on a 'frolic of his own' and the employer will not be vicariously liable. This is so if an employee acts outside the scope of his employment, i.e. does something he is not authorised to do or performs an act he is expressly prohibited from carrying out.


Here, a bus conductor, somewhat lacking in customer service skills, hit a passenger with his ticket machine after an altercation over the fare.

Makanjuola v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis 1992

An employee's act is not in the course of employment if he is deemed to have been on a 'frolic of his own' and the employer will not be vicariously liable. This is so if an employee acts outside the scope of his employment, i.e. does something he is not authorised to do or performs an act he is expressly prohibited from carrying out.


A Nigerian woman unsuccessfully claimed against the Police Commissioner for intimidation and sexual assault. She had consented to sex in return for a police officer refraining from reporting her alien status to the immigration authorities. Although s48 Police Act 1964 stated that the Commissioner of Police would be vicariously liable for the actions of his police officers, this would only apply if such acts were in the course of the police officer's employment. The police officer's actions were NOT in the course of his employment.