Market Investigations Ltd v Minister for Social Security

Market Investigations Ltd v Minister for Social Security
Court High Court of Justice
Citation(s) [1969] 2 QB 173
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Cooke J
Keywords
Contract of employment

Market Investigations Ltd v Minister for Social Security [1969] 2 QB 173 is a UK labour law case concerning the scope of protection for people to employment rights. It took the view that an employment contract requires attention to a multiple list of factors.[1] In some regards this judgement appears to contradict the earlier 'Ready Mixed Contract' case (RMC), which was decided the previous year. However, 'Market Investigations' involved implying the companies best-practice handbook into the contract between the parties, whereas 'RMC' was judged purely by rational construction of the agreed terms of the written contract, against the background of the written contract as a whole. There is an article on RMC in the UK wikipedia.

Facts

Mrs Anne Irving from time to time did market questionnaires. There was a dispute between the business for whom she did the surveys, Market Investigations, and the Minister for Social Security over whether National Insurance contributions should have been made on her behalf. This depended on whether she was an employee.

Judgment

Cooke J held Ms Irving was an employee for the purpose of National Insurance contributions, despite ‘a limited discretion as to when she should do the work.’ Mrs Irving could control some of the way she carried out the work, but not entirely. She could not be said to be in business ‘on her own account,’ a judgment which depended on a list of factors, none of which are decisive. After quoting Lord Wright, Lord Denning and the Supreme Court of the United States, Cooke J said the authorities,

“ "suggest that the fundamental test to be applied is this: 'Is the person who has engaged himself to perform these services performing them as a person in business on his own account?'. If the answer is 'Yes', then the contract is a contract for services. If the answer is 'No', then the contract is a contract of service". ”

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ "Employment - 1960- 1969". Retrieved 21 January 2012.

References

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 7/22/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.