Act 1965 depended on whether they were employees. The written contract between the company and the drivers was long and complicated but central to the contract was that the driver agreed to work for the company as an owner-driver and entered into a contract for the carriage of concrete, and also into a hire purchase contract relating to the lorry in which the concrete was to be carried. McKenna J gave careful consideration to the terms of the contract and decided that the contract was such that the driver was not an employee. For present purposes what is important is the test which he adopted as a yardstick against which to measure the facts of the case. At p 515 he said:

doi:10.4324/9781843140504-63

Chapter

Act 1965 depended on whether they were employees. The written contract between the company and the drivers was long and complicated but central to the contract was that the driver agreed to work for the company as an owner-driver and entered into a contract for the carriage of concrete, and also into a hire purchase contract relating to the lorry in which the concrete was to be carried. McKenna J gave careful consideration to the terms of the contract and decided that the contract was such that the driver was not an employee. For present purposes what is important is the test which he adopted as a yardstick against which to measure the facts of the case. At p 515 he said:

Chapter

Act 1965 depended on whether they were employees. The written contract between the company and the drivers was long and complicated but central to the contract was that the driver agreed to work for the company as an owner-driver and entered into a contract for the carriage of concrete, and also into a hire purchase contract relating to the lorry in which the concrete was to be carried. McKenna J gave careful consideration to the terms of the contract and decided that the contract was such that the driver was not an employee. For present purposes what is important is the test which he adopted as a yardstick against which to measure the facts of the case. At p 515 he said:

ABSTRACT

As to (i) – there must be a wage or other remuneration. Otherwise, there will be no consideration, and without consideration no contract of any kind. The servant must be obliged to provide his own work and skill. Freedom to do a job either by one’s own hands or by another’s is inconsistent with a contract of service, though a limited or occasional power of delegation may not be: see Atiyah’s Vicarious Liability in the Law of Torts (1967), pp 59-61 and the cases cited by him.