Employment Status

Hillyer v St Bartholomew’s 1909

Control Test

Negligent nurses under control of surgeon, but he was self employed. No claim in negligence against the hospital could result

Stevenson, Jordan and Harrison Ltd v Macdonald and Evans 1952

Integration test.

Copyright dispute. Is workers integrated into business? Lord Denning - although done for business, only accessory to it

Market Investigations Ltd v Minister of Social Security 1968

economic reality test.

Market researchers = employees, not in business on their own account.

Looking at ‘On his own account’

ABC News Intercontinental Inc v Gizbert 2006

Mutuality of Obligation test

freelance TV foreign correspondent refused posting to Iraq on safety grounds and not used again.

= Self employed as inter alia he could refuse assignments. He was under no obligation to go to war zones

Varnish v British cycling federation 2020

Mutuality of Obligation test

Cyclist is not an employee or worker. British Cycling was not obliged to offer her races or retain her, and she was not obliged to race for them exclusively

Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v. MPNI [1968]

Mckenna J established Multiple test.

Established the 33-part test (remuneration, control, and consistency). The driver was an independent contractor because he bore financial risk.

Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and others [2011]

20 individual car valeters signed contract stating self employed, but claimed they were workers. Not obliged to accept work, could not decline work, were mutuality of obligations, held significant control.

The case shone a light on ‘sham contracts’ and gave direction to courts to look at the relative bargaining strength of the parties

Pimlico Plumbers Ltd & Anor v Smith [2018]

A plumber (Smith) was defined in his contract as ‘self

employed’. wore a company uniform, drove a branded van, was required to work

minimum set hours and paid his own tax.

Held: 

Not self employed but also not an employee. 

He was a worker. Limited right to substitute labour. His right to substitute his labour was limited.

Uber v Aslam [2021]

Uber drivers are ‘workers’ entitled to certain employment rights (minimum wage, paid leave) and not self employed as Uber argued and stipulated in the contract.

Uber fix the amount of money paid to drivers and the fares of trips for passengers.

The terms of the contracts dictated by Uber can penalise drivers who decline too many rides.

Uber exercises significant control over the way drivers deliver their services. For example, if a driver does not follow the route set by the Uber app, the driver bears the financial risk of any passenger complaint.

Uber restricts communication