Business Law Assignment

Running head: BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
Business Law Assignment

BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT 1
Question 1
To analyse whether Walter was an employee or an independent contractor will depend upon
the nature of employment relationship. The employee has been considered to hire under a
contract of service and an independent contract is hired under a contract for service. It can
also be said that the employers are liable for any breach of laws by employee, whereas a
worker itself will be liable for the breach of laws in contract for service. While employer will
be responsible for the PAYE system in contract of service but in the case study, Walter
PAYE has not been deducted by the employer Paula and Peter (Rogers, 2016).
There are number of criteria have been determined by the Courts of employment relationship
nature. To check the employment relationship one test is control test, control test had been
determined in the case Yewen v. Noakes (1881) 6 QBD 530 by the Irish Courts. In another
similar, case Roche v. Kelly (1968) IR 100. In both the cases it was held that if the control is
with the employer such as control of timings, clothes and what is require to do and how it
should been done. The defendants in this case wanted to build a barn and for that, they have
employed the plaintiff. Defendants has provided the construction materials to the plaintiff but
did not supervised that how to do the job and not supervised his work. Plaintiff was
experienced in building the barn. The element of Control off the employer over the employee
has been the main factor to determine the employer and employee relationship has been
founded by Supreme Court. In this case, there was no control of defendant over the plaintiff
and hence the plaintiff was considered as an independent contractor and not as an employee
(Sprague, 2015).
In accordance with the control test, Walter used to do his job in accordance with his time,
there was no supervision of the Peter, and Paula on the Walter’s work. It was established in
the case of Yewen v. Noakes and Roche v. Kelly case that control is required of the employer
on the employee of timings, clothes and what he is doing. Thus, it can be said that Walter is
an independent contractor according to this test.
The second test is integration or organisation test that is used to determine the relationship. It
was stated in this test that an employee must been integrated with others in an organisations,
even though there was no control of the employer about what he does. The Court will also
analyse while deciding that whether the employee is a vital part of the organisation or work
place.

BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT 2
Walter has not been integrated to others in the workplace accept Peter and Paula. However,
he is vital part of an organisation.
The third test called the mixed test is a most important test which has been favoured by the
Irish Courts that has been developed by the McKenna K in the case Ready Mixed Concrete v.
Minister of Pensions (1968) 2 QB 497. The case states that contract has been held between
lorry driver and Plaintiff Company. Lorry driver used to maintain and insured lorry by
himself and he was self-employed. However, plaintiff had helped him to finance the purchase
of the lorry. He used to wear uniform and his lorry has been painted by the company’s
colours. The driving could be delegated by him and for that, he has been paid per mile driven.
The issue in this case arose was whether the lorry driver was an employee and whether it is
required to have a pension contributions by the company (Occhiuto, 2017).
In this test, it has been stated that few conditions are required to be fulfilled for establishing a
contract of service that are:
 The worker must have an obligation to do the work with his skills and in return, he
will get the remuneration or the wages.
 There must be a sufficient degree of control of the employer on worker is required.
 Contract other provisions should not been inconsistent shall being the contract of
service.
The Court has stated that while giving the decision financial reality shall also been required
to be considered. The Court held that lorry driver was an independent contractor as there was
no sufficient control was there on the lorry driver. It has been established in the case Ready
Mixed Concrete v. Minister of Pensions one of the condition was not fulfilled and therefore
he had been considered as an independent contractor.
In accordance with the third test, Walter provides a good work with his skills and in return,
he gets the wages but there was not a sufficient degree of control over the Walter’s work as
peter and Paula does not know what he actually does. He does works according to his will
and working hours. Therefore, not all conditions of third test have been fulfilled by the
Walter to be considered as an employee. In Accordance with the third test, it can be said that
he is not an employee but an independent contractor (Cherry and Aloisi, 2016).
It can be analysed with all the three tests that Walter shall not been considered as an
employee of the organisation. He is an independent contractor for the company. Walter is