Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
Carson v Lancaster
24 Aug 2006, J Crichton, CA 130/06, (7 pages)
JURISDICTION - Whether employee or contractor - Preliminary investigation exclusively to deal with question of legal status of relationship between parties - Applicants invited by respondents to work on their farm - Meeting held involving parties and respondent's farm adviser ("G") - Accountant ("M") involved in matter for both parties - G gave evidence parties discussed differences between employment relationship and contractual relationship at meeting - Applicants sought advice from M - M advised would obtain tax advantages through contractual relationship - Parties may have been clear about what they wanted to achieve, but were not clear about implications of different kinds of legal status - Document executed by parties looked like employment agreement - However, not clear parties actually understood significance of document - Documentation of relationship no way determinative of actual nature of relationship - At end of relationship parties acknowledged was an employment relationship - For rest of period was plainly no agreement was employment relationship - Fact applicants registered for GST and employed staff significant and suggested relationship contractual - Intention of parties not particularly helpful, as parties themselves not sure of nature of relationship - M gave evidence both parties knew relationship was contractual - Applicants still legally employees even though still registered for GST and able to issue invoices as if contractors - Authority found both parties uncertain about status of relationship - Matter finely balanced - Fact applicants employed staff completely irreconcilable with them being employees, coupled with advice from M and his conviction parties knew employment relationship not contemplated, weighed balance in favour of contractual relationship - Relationship not one of employment - Farm managers
Result: Application dismissed ; Costs reserved
Tones v 3D1 Ltd
23 Nov 2006, YS Oldfield, AA 355/06, (4 pages)
JURISDICTION - Whether employee or independent contractor - Position advertisement sought contractor and subsequent information provided to applicant stated would own business and be self employed - Applicant initially saw himself as self employed, although claimed had no idea what that meant - Felt situation changed as became involved in range of duties allegedly wider than agreement - Written agreement contained mix of features commonly associated with both types of arrangement - Intention of parties critical - Respondent's intention clearly and consistently expressed - Applicant learned respondent desired contract of service before formal offer made and participated in active negotiations - Assertion did not understand "self employed" not credible - At time agreement entered into, both parties understood and intended applicant would be self employed - Authority not convinced real nature of relationship changed so much in practice that it became one of employment - Additional work taken on by applicant had potential to benefit him as well as respondent - Also to his benefit that respondent paid more business expenses than originally agreed - Independent contractor - No jurisdiction - Sales manager
Result: Application dismissed ; Costs reserved
Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
