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 which was heard as a challenge to a decision by Government that employed National Insurance contributions were due on the payments to the worker. It took the view that establishing the common-law employment status of a employment contract requires attention to a multiple list of factors.[1] In some regards this judgement appears to undermine the three-step reasoning of the 'Ready Mixed Contract' case (RMC), which was decided the previous year. However, 'Market Investigations' involved implying the companies best-practice handbook into each of the separate contracts between the parties, whereas 'RMC' was judged purely by rational construction of the agreed terms of a lengthy 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
The up-front ratio decidendi of the judgement was that Market Investigations (MI) were mistaken in their belief that they did not have a right of control over Mrs Irving. The 'Guide for Interviewers' which J Cooke implied into the terms of the contracts was a comprehensive prescription for how the work MUST be done. Therefore MI had a clear and right of control over Mrs Irvine, which meant that the contracts with her were contracts of service, and were subject to the National Insurance provisions for employed persons. The case did not create any precedent, but J Cooke included the following remark at the end of his brief review of the authorities. "The observations of Lord Wright, of Denning L.J. and of the Judges of the (US) Supreme Court suggest that the fundamental test to be applied is this: "Is the person who has engaged themselves to perform these services performing them as a person in business on their own account?" After establishing that the contracts which MI concluded with Mrs Irving were for personal service, and gave MI a decisive right of control over her, J Cooke looked to see whether the 'fundamental test' that he had adumbrated would strengthen or weaken the answer which consideration of the right of control had revealed. He found that there was nothing in the case which showed that the contracts were made with Mrs Irving, as a person in business on her own account, and therefore the decision based on control was sound. Interestingly, the first page summary of the case rearranged the order of J Cooke's actual reasoning. In doing so it obscured the importance of the 'right of control' to J Cooke's decision, giving prominence to the later review of whether Mrs Irving provided her services as a person in business on her own account. The Judgement runs from page 173 to page 188 of Vol 2 for the Queens Bench of that year.
See also
Notes
- ↑ "Employment - 1960- 1969". Retrieved 21 January 2012.