• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

With reference to case law, discuss the difficulties surrounding the legal tests used to identify a contract of employment.

Extracts from this document...


Employment Law Coursework 1 Title "Certainly there is no one factor which marks out a contract of employment. A factor which is important in one case may be insignificant or not present in the next". (Michael Jefferson, Principles of Employment Law) With reference to case law, discuss the difficulties surrounding the legal tests used to identify a contract of employment. Word Guidance: 2000 Words Hand in date: Monday November 17th 2003 Most people, I think, could answer the question "Are you an employee?". Some people may answer yes, while others, those being self-employed, will reply in the negative. However, as simple the question appears, in law a positive result gives significant rights and obligations. It is imperative therefore that an employee be distinguished from a independent contractor. It is said that an employee works under a contract of service, whereas an independent contractor works under a contract for services. In my opinion, that distinction does nothing to help distinguish, indeed it perhaps confuses, the situation. There are a multitude of rights that flow from being an employee which are not available to independent contractors. These include written particulars of employment; unfair dismissal, redundancy, equal pay, statutory sick pay and maternity rights; health and safety provisions; rights to statutory and contractual notice periods; social security payments; amongst many others. ...read more.


The fact that the drivers could delegate their duties was crucial as this is not something seen in employment contracts. The test has now been accepted by the courts. The first limb of the test can be seen from Lord Thankerton's adapted control test in Short v J & W Henderson7. Adrian Williams argues that the inclusion of "or other renumerartion" can be criticised in that it doesn't distinguish between the regular salaries paid to employees and the lump generally paid to independent contractors. The second test is merely a restatement of the control test. In Market Investigations v Minister of Social Security8, Cooke J observed that "control will no doubt always have to be considered, although it can no longer be regarded as the sole decisive factor". In that case, Cooke J considered the third limb of the test. The question to be determined by the court was whether a person was in business on his own account. That case concerned an interviewer who carried out market research part time. She could do the work at whatever time she wished, provided that it was done within the given time. It was held that she was an employee. ...read more.


Likewise, in Motorola v Davidson20, the employer had a sufficient degree of day to day control, which made the worker an employee. All the relevant factors need to be considered, and as long as the employment tribunal takes these into account, their decision will be a question of fact and their finding can not be challenged unless they came to the conclusion which could not be reasonably obtained by any other tribunal. The only thing that is certain is that if there is control, no delegation and a mutuality of obligation the court should find a contract of employment. Going back the original question, it is clear that the tests created by the Courts were inadequate in a modern society. The courts now tend to look at a multitude of factors in deciding employee status. The most important factor, it seems, will be mutuality of obligations. Adrian Williams concludes his article by suggesting that statutory intervention is necessary. I agree that because of the importance and number of rights an 'employee' will receive, it is paramount that the courts can determine worker status accurately. I find it difficult to see though how a statutory test would advance the position we are in now, the position of painting a picture of all factors and balancing them out. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Contract Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree Contract Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Of all of the elements which make up the definition of theft, which are ...

    3 star(s)

    appropriating, and therefore makes it a lot easier to convict those of theft. Also appropriation has become associated with the element of dishonesty and has therefore been put into the mens rea aspect that someone has to dishonestly appropriate. This means that a gift can be appropriated if it has been done dishonestly as shown in Hinks (2001)

  2. Advise Anna of her legal position

    or would have acted as they did without any such contract, there is no necessity to imply a contract. It is merely putting the same point another way to say that no intention to make any contract will be inferred."

  1. The Main Requirements of a Simple Legal Binding Contract - Law of Contract.

    is one which the parties, in the view of the court, must have intended to include, the term may be implied into the contract. Such a term must be something so obvious that it 'goes without saying'. An example is the Moorlock 1889, where the defendants, wharf owners, agreed to allow the plaintiffs to unload a vessel.

  2. misrepresentation-problm question

    This requirement was not satisfied in JEB Fastners v. Marks, Bloom and Co [1983] 1 All ER 583. The defendant (D) in this case negligently prepared the accounts of a company which was taken over by the claimants (C). The claimants had reservations about the accounts but nonetheless proceeded with he take over because they wished to acquire the service of the directors of that company.


    newspaper - the entries were always made in the defendant's name, but they all contributed to the postage and other expenses and agreed that any prizes would be shared - they eventually won a prize and the defendant refused to share Outcome - it is clear that the parties had

  2. Commercial Law in UK

    So in S Co's case it is important that the hypothetical widgets in question do not get damaged or irreversibly mixed, otherwise retention of title will not be secured. In this case scenario S Co and B Co use exactly the same goods.

  1. contract law

    areas: Specific Situations Offer or Invitation to Treat Advertisements for the sale of goods Invitation to treat unless words and nature of advertisement indicate otherwise (esp. phrases like "while stocks last" or "limited to first 20 callers" Display of goods for sale Invitation to treat unless circumstances indicate otherwise Reply

  2. Contract law - review of cases.

    in the appendix). In this rule, ?the performance is a means of acceptance? (4LawSchool.com, 2001). Unilateral contract A unilateral contract is the case in which there is an offer and a person who performs an act fulfilling all the terms of the offer in the ignorance of that offer.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work