133:
servant, mostly in order to decide issues of tortious liability on the part of the master or superior. In the more complex conditions of modern industry, more complicated tests have often to be applied. It has been suggested that a fourfold test would in some cases be more appropriate, a complex involving (1) control; (2) ownership of the tools; (3) chance of profit; (4) risk of loss. Control in itself is not always conclusive. Thus the master of a chartered vessel is generally the employee of the shipowner though the charter can direct the employment of the vessel. Again the law often limits the employer's right to interfere with the employee's conduct, as also do trade union regulations. In many cases the question can only be settled by examining the whole of the various elements which constitute the relationship between the parties. in this way it is in some cases possible to decide the issue by raising as the crucial question whose business is it, or in other words by asking whether the party is carrying on the business, in the sense of carrying it on for himself or on his own behalf and not merely for a superior. In the present case the business or undertaking is in the manufacture of the warlike vehicles. The respondent might have been making them with a view to selling them to the
Government for its own profit.... The respondent supplied no funds and took no financial risk and no liability, with the significant exception of bad faith or wanton neglect: every other risk was taken by the Government.
132:
The great difference of opinion on this question in the Courts below illustrates the difficulty which is inherent in deciding questions like this. In earlier cases a single test, such as the presence or absence of control, was often relied on to determine whether the case was one of master and
109:, "for and on behalf of the Government and as its agent". If the company was occupying the premises where it built the plant merely as an agent, then it would not be liable for tax, but if it was carrying on business on its own behalf it could, under the
291:
128:
The Privy
Council advised that the company was not liable for tax, and had to be regarded as an agent. Lord Wright delivered the advice, and said the following.
277:
508:
251:
399:
357:
317:
180:
305:
163:
106:
413:
195:
385:
329:
110:
441:
371:
265:
105:
claimed taxes from
Montreal Locomotive Works Ltd, which built a plant to manufacture tanks and gun carriages for the
209:
223:
117:
156:
427:
200:
17:
213:
86:
237:
149:
102:
375:
417:
403:
445:
431:
361:
347:
343:
185:
78:
48:
502:
466:
455:
90:
82:
389:
255:
241:
227:
333:
61:
141:
65:
85:
case relating to tax and commercial business, but of interest to
145:
55:
44:
36:
31:
293:Market Invest Ltd v Minister for Social Security
130:
157:
8:
120:held that the company was merely an agent.
279:Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v SS for Pensions
164:
150:
142:
107:Minister of Munitions and Supply of Canada
28:
252:Clyde & Co LLP v Bates van Winkelhof
75:Montreal v Montreal Locomotive Works Ltd
32:Montreal v Montreal Locomotive Works Ltd
477:
7:
400:Dacas v Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd
358:Lane v Shire Roofing Co (Oxford) Ltd
318:Nethermere (St Neots) Ltd v Gardiner
181:Lawrie-Blum v Land Baden-Wurttenberg
18:Montreal v Montreal Locomotive Works
25:
414:Muscat v Cable & Wireless Plc
93:on the definition for employees.
196:Pfeiffer v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz
386:Carmichael v National Power plc
330:Lee Ting Sang v Chung Chi-Keung
509:United Kingdom labour case law
306:O’Kelly v Trusthouse Forte plc
1:
442:Muschett v H M Prison Service
372:McMeechan v SS for Employment
266:Cassidy v Minister of Health
525:
210:Employment Rights Act 1996
172:Workplace protection cases
452:
438:
424:
410:
396:
382:
368:
354:
340:
326:
314:
302:
288:
274:
262:
248:
234:
220:
207:
192:
177:
111:British North America Act
60:
224:Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher
118:Supreme Court of Canada
135:
428:James v Greenwich LBC
462:
461:
238:Jivraj v Hashwani
71:
70:
16:(Redirected from
516:
485:
482:
294:
280:
166:
159:
152:
143:
103:City of Montreal
29:
21:
524:
523:
519:
518:
517:
515:
514:
513:
499:
498:
493:
488:
483:
479:
475:
463:
458:
448:
434:
420:
406:
392:
378:
364:
350:
336:
322:
310:
298:
292:
284:
278:
270:
258:
244:
230:
216:
203:
188:
173:
170:
140:
126:
99:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
522:
520:
512:
511:
501:
500:
497:
496:
492:
489:
487:
486:
484:1 DLR 161, 169
476:
474:
471:
470:
469:
460:
459:
453:
450:
449:
439:
436:
435:
425:
422:
421:
411:
408:
407:
397:
394:
393:
383:
380:
379:
369:
366:
365:
355:
352:
351:
344:Hall v Lorimer
341:
338:
337:
327:
324:
323:
315:
312:
311:
303:
300:
299:
289:
286:
285:
275:
272:
271:
263:
260:
259:
249:
246:
245:
235:
232:
231:
221:
218:
217:
208:
205:
204:
193:
190:
189:
178:
175:
174:
171:
169:
168:
161:
154:
146:
139:
136:
125:
122:
98:
95:
69:
68:
58:
57:
53:
52:
46:
42:
41:
38:
34:
33:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
521:
510:
507:
506:
504:
495:
494:
490:
481:
478:
472:
468:
467:UK labour law
465:
464:
457:
456:UK labour law
451:
447:
444:
443:
437:
433:
430:
429:
423:
419:
416:
415:
409:
405:
402:
401:
395:
391:
388:
387:
381:
377:
376:EWCA Civ 1166
374:
373:
367:
363:
360:
359:
353:
349:
346:
345:
339:
335:
332:
331:
325:
320:
319:
313:
308:
307:
301:
296:
295:
287:
282:
281:
273:
268:
267:
261:
257:
254:
253:
247:
243:
240:
239:
233:
229:
226:
225:
219:
215:
211:
206:
202:
198:
197:
191:
187:
183:
182:
176:
167:
162:
160:
155:
153:
148:
147:
144:
137:
134:
129:
123:
121:
119:
114:
113:section 125.
112:
108:
104:
96:
94:
92:
91:UK labour law
88:
84:
83:Privy Council
80:
77:
76:
67:
63:
59:
54:
50:
47:
43:
40:Privy Council
39:
35:
30:
27:
19:
480:
440:
426:
418:EWCA Civ 220
412:
404:EWCA Civ 217
398:
384:
370:
356:
342:
328:
316:
304:
290:
276:
264:
250:
236:
222:
194:
179:
131:
127:
115:
100:
74:
73:
72:
26:
446:EWCA Civ 25
432:EWCA Civ 35
362:EWCA Civ 37
348:EWCA Civ 25
491:References
51:1 DLR 161
503:Category
297:2 QB 173
283:2 QB 497
269:2 KB 343
201:C-397/01
138:See also
87:Canadian
66:employee
56:Keywords
45:Citation
390:UKHL 47
321:ICR 612
309:ICR 730
256:UKSC 32
242:UKSC 40
228:UKSC 41
199:(2005)
186:C-66/85
184:(1986)
79:UKPC 44
49:UKPC 44
334:UKPC 1
124:Advice
473:Notes
97:Facts
81:is a
62:Agent
37:Court
454:see
116:The
101:The
89:and
214:230
505::
212:s
64:,
165:e
158:t
151:v
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.