Zuijs v Wirth Brothers Pty Ltd [1955]: A Legal Case Summary

Case name & citation: Zuijs v Wirth Brothers Pty Ltd [1955] HCA 73; (1955) 93 CLR 561

Court: High Court of Australia
Date: 15 December 1955
The bench of judges: Dixon CJ, McTiernan, Williams, Webb and Taylor JJ
Appellant: Constantin Zuijs
Respondent: Wirth Bros. Pty. Ltd. (circus proprietors)

What is the case about?

In Zuijs v Wirth Brothers Pty Ltd, the key issue revolves around whether the appellant, an acrobat performing at a circus, should be considered a “worker” under the Workers’ Compensation Act 1926-1948 (N.S.W.). The appellant sought compensation after sustaining injuries during a performance and argued that he was either employed under a contract of service or that he should benefit from Section 6(3A) of the Act.

Section 6(3A) establishes a deemed employment relationship under certain conditions, such as when a contractor does not operate an independent trade or business and performs work exceeding five pounds in value.

Initial decision in Zuijs v Wirth Brothers Pty Ltd

The Workers’ Compensation Commission ruled that Zuijs was not employed under a contract of service, nor did he fall within the purview of Section 6(3A), denying him compensation.

This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which upheld the Commission’s findings. Further, the case was escalated to the High Court of Australia.

Judgment of the High Court

The High Court found that the appellant was working under a contract of service, meaning he was an employee of the circus.

The decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales was overturned, and the matter was remitted for further consideration in line with the High Court’s interpretation.

Reasoning (Zuijs v Wirth Brothers Pty Ltd)

Even though the acrobatics themselves require a high degree of individual skill and personal performance, the circus, as the employer, had control over other aspects of the job. These included decisions about the schedule of performances, rehearsals, safety measures, costumes, and conduct. The employer’s ability to control these ancillary aspects suggests a relationship of employment, rather than independent contracting.

Regarding the applicability of Section 6(3A), it was found that the provision requires a contract involving work worth more than five pounds. However, it is clear that the trapeze artist’s role, being part of a touring circus, involves repeated acts for a weekly wage, not a one-off task or a contract based on specific, measurable work. Therefore, the provision that requires a contract for a particular task with a defined value does not apply here.

In this regard, the judges stated as under:

“In our opinion this provision is entirely inappropriate to the kind of contract in question in this case. That is shown by the opening words, “Where a contract to perform any work exceeding five pounds in value”. You cannot satisfy this condition by a contract of indefinite duration for repeated performances of an act on a trapeze.”

Significance

This case highlights the importance of interpreting the nature of employment contracts carefully, especially in situations involving specialized work like that of an acrobat.

References:

https://jade.io/article/65112

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986)

MORE FROM LABOUR LAW:

Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986)

Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) is a case of workplace negligence. The case revolves around the distinction between an employee and an independent contractor. Given below are the case details:

Case name & citation:	Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16
The concerned Court:	High Court of Australia
The bench of judges:	Mason, Wilson, Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ.
Decided on:	13 February 1986
Area of law:	Employment status under labour law

Facts of the case (Stevens v Brodribb)

Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd had a large sawmill in eastern Victoria and conducted extensive logging activities in the nearby area. The company hired people to do the requisite tasks such as felling, snigging (loading), and truck driving. Grey was hired to use a tractor that he supplied himself to push or drag felled logs to a loading ramp and then load the logs onto a truck. On the other hand, Stevens was engaged to drive the timber load to the sawmill. He was to use his personal truck for this purpose.

A “bush boss” who was an employee of Brodribb oversaw the logging activities. On the day of the incident, Gray was having trouble loading a short log onto Stevens’ truck. In an attempt to assist, Stevens used a chain to secure the log to the tractor blades. But before he walked away from there, Gray moved the tractor dislodging the log which rolled down the ramp and hurt Stevens accidentally. He sustained severe injuries and filed a claim for damages against both Gray (for his negligence) and Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd.

Issue

The main issue, in this case, was to determine the employment status of Gray and Stevens. Whether they should be classified as employees or independent contractors?

Judgment of the Court in Stevens v Brodribb

Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd was concerned about the legal implications of classifying the two men as either employees or independent contractors. If Gray and Stevens were deemed independent contractors, the sawmilling company could avoid vicarious liability for Gray’s negligent actions nor would it be personally liable to Stevens for breach of employer’s duty to provide adequate equipment and a safe system of work.

The High Court of Australia decided that Gray and Stevens were independent contractors. But it also established that even in cases where an individual is classified as an independent contractor, the principal may still owe a duty of care to him pursuant to the general principles of negligence. This means that the sawmilling company still had a responsibility to take reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of Stevens. Though in this specific case, on the issue of liability to the injured (Stevens), the High Court found that Brodribb had not breached its duty of care.

Employee vs Independent Contractor

In deciding the employment status of Gray and Stevens, the judges considered that the element of control alone is not the sole criterion to determine the relationship of employment. Several other factors were listed for example:

mode of remuneration of the workers
provision and maintenance of equipment (who provides the equipment)
hours of work and provision for holidays or leave
obligation to work at the employer’s direction
the deduction of income tax
payment of significant business expenses from remuneration
the creation of goodwill or saleable assets
delegation of work or sub-contracting
work involving a specialized profession or trade

Quotes from the case

Mason J said as under:

“…the existence of control, whilst significant, is not the sole criterion by which to gauge whether a relationship is one of employment. The approach of this Court has been to regard it as merely one of a number of indicia which must be considered in the determination of that question … Other relevant matters include, but are not limited to, the mode of remuneration, the provision and maintenance of equipment, the obligation to work, the hours of work and provision for holidays, the deduction of income tax and the delegation of work by the putative employee.”

List of references:

You might also like:

More from labour law:

Sweeney v Boylan Nominees Pty Ltd [2006]: A Summary

Sweeney v Boylan Nominees Pty Ltd [2006] is a famous labour law case from Australia.

Case name & citation: Sweeney v Boylan Nominees Pty Limited [2006] HCA 19; (2006) 227 ALR 46; (2006) 226 CLR 161
The concerned Court: High Court of Australia
Decided on: 16 May 2006
Area of law: Employment status under labour law; Vicarious liability

Given below are the case facts.

Facts of the case (Sweeney v Boylan Nominees)

Mrs. Sweeney sustained injuries when a refrigerator door at a service station fell off and smacked her on the head. Earlier in the day on which Mrs. Sweeney was hurt, the owners of the service station had already informed Boylan, who owned the refrigerator, that there was a problem with the door. Mr. Comninos, a mechanic, was dispatched to the service station to undertake repairs. The trial judge determined that Mr. Comninos failed to exercise reasonable care, which resulted in Mrs. Sweeney’s injuries. This finding was not challenged on appeal.

Mrs. Sweeney filed a lawsuit against the owners of the service station and Boylan.

Issue that arose

The main issue of the case was the nature of Boylan’s engagement with Mr. Comninos. That is, whether he was an employee or an independent contractor.

Boylan had six employees in its service department, three field service employees who performed repairs at Boylan’s clients’ locations, and two contractors (including Mr. Comninos) who did the same work as the field service employees. Although Mr. Comninos worked for Boylan on a regular basis, the contractors were only required to work when the field service personnel were fully occupied. Mr. Comninos was referred to as “our mechanic” in Boylan’s service reports, and he was empowered to collect the amount due when repairs were finished. Boylan also referred to Mr. Comninos as “our mechanic” in a report to its public liability insurer.

Unlike the field service personnel, Mr. Comninos was not obligated to accept jobs from Boylan, wore no Boylan uniform, was not based on Boylan’s premises, and invoiced Boylan for the hours he worked. Mr. Comninos also possessed his own trade certificate and contractor’s license, as well as his own public liability and workers’ compensation insurance, and drove his own van with his own firm name on it.

Judgment of the Court in Sweeney v Boylan Nominees

Trial judge:

Mrs. Sweeney’s claim against the owners of the service station was dismissed in the District Court of New South Wales. And this claim was not pursued further on appeal. Mrs. Sweeney, on the other hand, prevailed in her case against Boylan on the grounds that it was vicariously liable for the negligence of Mr. Comninos. The trial judge determined that the mechanic was acting as a servant or agent of Boylan, and he had the approval and authority from Boylan to carry out the work in question. In reaching this, the trial judge gave significant weight to the various documents that referred to Mr. Comninos as “our mechanic.”

Court of Appeal:

The New South Wales Court of Appeal overturned the trial judge’s decision and ruled that the relationship between Boylan and the mechanic, Mr. Comninos, was not that of an employment relationship. The Court of Appeal cited several reasons to support this finding:

Boylan did not exert control over Mr. Comninos in his day-to-day work activities.
There was no mutual obligation between Boylan and Mr. Comninos to provide and accept work.
Mr. Comninos conducted his work under his own name.
Mr. Comninos supplied his own equipment and tools for the tasks and bought his own spare parts.
Boylan paid Mr. Comninos based on a piecework basis.
Mr. Comninos issued his own invoices to Boylan.
Mr. Comninos provided his own insurance coverage and managed his superannuation.

All of these factors distinguished his independence from Boylan’s direct employment. This indicated that he was an independent contractor and not an employee.

High Court:

The High Court upheld the decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal.

The majority underlined the importance of distinguishing between employees and independent contractors in determining the scope of vicarious liability. It moved away from relying solely on the control test and preferred to consider the totality of the relationship between the parties as articulated in Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd (2001).

The Court accepted that the facts did not support a finding that Mr. Comninos was an employee. Therefore, Boylan was not held vicariously liable for Mr. Comninos’ actions, and Mrs. Sweeney’s claim against Boylan was not upheld based on vicarious liability.

List of references:

You might also like:

More from labour law:

Cassidy v Ministry of Health [1951]: Facts and Principles

Cassidy v Ministry of Health [1951] is an important tort and labour law casethat deals with the concept of Res Ipsa Loquitur (Latin for “the thing speaks for itself”) and the liability of a hospital for the negligence of its employees.

The case details are as follows:

Case name & citation:	Cassidy v Minister of Health [1951] 2 KB 343
Court and jurisdiction:	Court of Appeal; England and Wales
The bench of judges:	Somervell, Singleton and Denning, L.JJ.
Area of law:	Employment status under labour law; vicarious liability

Facts of the case (Cassidy v Ministry of Health)

The plaintiff underwent medical surgery for his two stiff fingers at a hospital run by the defendant. As a result of the negligence of one of the doctors involved in the operation, the plaintiff’s hand became stiff affecting majorly all of his fingers. The plaintiff brought a lawsuit against the hospital authority, alleging negligence and seeking to establish vicarious liability.

The defendant contended that the doctors or the staff operating were not considered as its servants as it did not exercise control over how they performed their duties. Hence, it should not be held vicariously liable.

Issue

Whether the hospital authority was liable for the negligence on the part of its doctors.

Judgment of the Court in Cassidy v Ministry of Health

The Court held that the hospital authority was responsible for the negligence of its doctors. The doctor operating the surgery (or doctors involved in the incident) was to be categorized as a servant of the defendant because the defendant had chosen him/her for the job and the person was fully integrated into the defendant’s organization. Their selection was not based on the patient’s choice. Therefore, the defendant was held liable for the negligent actions of the doctors during the course of their employment at the hospital.

Applying the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur

In this case, the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur was applied.

The plaintiff said, “I went into hospital to be cured of two stiff fingers. I have come out with four stiff fingers and my hand is useless. This should not have happened if due care had been used. Explain it if you can.”

Given this, it was established that since the plaintiff had suffered an injury during a medical procedure performed by the hospital staff and the exact cause/particular employee responsible for the negligence cannot be identified by him, the hospital authority will be presumed to be negligent unless it proves that none of its employees had acted negligently during the treatment. In other words, the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur was applied. This doctrine allows the court to infer negligence on the part of the hospital authority based on the nature of the accident itself, even without direct evidence of negligence. The circumstances surrounding the case were such that the injury could not have occurred without some degree of negligence on the part of the hospital or its staff.

Quotes from the case

Denning LJ gave the following views:

“I take it to be clear law, as well as good sense, that, where a person is himself under a duty to use care, he cannot get rid of his responsibility by delegating the performance of it to someone else, no matter whether the delegation be to a servant under a contract of service or to an independent contractor under a contract for services.”

“……Whenever they accept a patient for treatment, they must use reasonable care and skill to cure him of his ailment. The hospital authorities cannot, of course, do it by themselves: they have no ears to listen through the stethoscope, and no hands to hold the surgeon’s knife. They must do it by the staff which they employ; and if their staff are negligent in giving the treatment, they are just as liable for that negligence as is anyone else who employs others to do his duties for him.”

Conclusion

The level of control exercised by a superior over his subordinates plays a major role in determining an employer-employee relationship. However, since the case of Cassidy v Minister of Health, it has been evident that relying solely on the control test can be inadequate, especially in a hospital setting. This case established that hospitals can be held liable for the negligence of doctors who are employed on a full-time basis by them. The control test alone cannot be sufficient to determine liability in such situations. Because in the case of a professional employee such as a doctor, the employer may lack knowledge of the specific field and may not be able to exert direct control over the doctor’s practice.

List of references:

You might also like:

More from labour law:

Case Summary of Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd (2001)

Case name & citation: Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 44; (2001) 181 ALR 263; (2001) 207 CLR 21

The concerned court: High Court of Australia

Decided on: 09 August 2001

The bench of judges: Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne & Callinan JJ

Area of law: Employment status under labour law

What is the case about?

Hollis v Vabu (2001) is a famous Australian case on employment law. The nature of the employee-employer relationship was the primary focus of this case. The issue was whether the claimant was an employee or an independent contractor. Given below are the case details.

Facts of the case (Hollis v Vabu)

Vabu conducted business under the name of ‘Crisis Couriers’ and it had 20 to 30 bicycle and motorcycle couriers. In December of 1994, a pedestrian, Mr. Hollis was on his way out of a building where he had just picked up a parcel. After stepping onto the footpath, he was injured as a result of being knocked down by a cyclist who was wearing a jacket marked with the Crisis Couriers logo.

Mr. Hollis thus brought a claim against the company for damages. He claimed that the courier was working for the company and acting as its employee and agent when he was riding the bicycle.

Issue

Was the courier an employee? If yes, was Vabu vicariously liable?

Judgment of the Court in Hollis v Vabu

When determining the true nature of a relationship of employment in the past, control was the only factor that was taken into account. However, the High Court ruled that the totality of the relationship between the parties must be taken into account. This includes factors such as remuneration (including whether there are invoices, whether the contractor is registered for GST, and whether tax is being withheld), who decides the hours that the contractor will work, who provides the equipment, and so on.

Ultimately, the High Court, by majority, decided that the bicycle courier was an employee of Vabu, and as a result, Vabu was found to be vicariously liable for the act of the courier who knocked down Mr. Hollis.

Factors considered in the decision

The judges of the High Court issued a joint judgment in which they applied the multi-facet test. In this test, they not only considered the contractual terms that were in place between Vabu and the couriers, but they also investigated “the system which was operated thereunder and the work practices imposed by Vabu.” This was done in order to determine the entirety of the relationship that existed between the two parties.

The following factors were taken into account:

the courier was not operating an independent business of his own
the courier did not provide skilled labour or labour that required special qualifications
the couriers did not have much say in the manner in which their work was performed
the courier company had significant actual control over the activities of the couriers
as a method of identification, the company uniform was required to be worn by the couriers, and they were presented to the general public and people who used the courier service as emanations of the company
the company supplied the uniforms and radios that the couriers used to communicate with the company
the company supervised the finances of the couriers, making deductions for unsubstantiated charges and for insurance, and fining the couriers when they caused damage to company property or failed to return it
there was no room for the couriers to negotiate the rate of their remuneration
the company decided when and how often couriers could take leave, and leave was not available during certain times of the year that were particularly busy, such as Christmas and Easter

The joint judgment presented the view that it couldn’t be said that the couriers were independent contractors simply because they owned their own bikes, bore the expense of running them, and supplied many of their own accessories. There was nothing contrary to the relationship of employment. This was even more so because the capital outlay was relatively small and because bicycles are not tools that are inherently capable of being used only for the courier/delivery work, but rather offer a means of personal transportation as well as a means of recreation outside of working hours.

List of references:

You might also like:

More from labour law:

Walker v Crystal Palace Football Club [1910]: Case Summary

Case name & citation: Walker v Crystal Palace Football Club Ltd. [1910] 1 KB 87

Court and jurisdiction: The Court of Appeal, England and Wales

Year of the case: 1910

The bench of judges: Cozens-Hardy, M.R., Fletcher Moulton and Farwell L.JJ.

Area of law: Employment status under labour law

What is the case about?

This is a UK labour law case that addressed the employer-employee relationship and whether it constituted a contract of service.

Facts of the case (Walker v Crystal Palace)

A footballer worked in a club. The issue was whether or not he was considered to be employed by the club in order for him to be eligible to claim compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906 as a result of an accident that occurred while participating in a match.

He was paid £3.50 per week for a year’s contract with the club and was expected to provide his playing services exclusively to the club. He was supervised by the club during training and was also expected to be available for matches.

Assertions by the club and arguments

It was argued that he was not covered by the Act. The club asserted that he did not have a contract of service because, according to its reasoning, it was necessary for there to be a master-servant relationship in which the master had the authority to direct how the work should be done.

For this, reliance was placed on the definition of an employee given by Bramwell J in Yewens v Noakes (1880). It said, “a servant is a person who is subject to the command of his master as to the manner in which he shall do his work”. Yewens v Noakes set out the historic ‘control test’ which said that there is an employer-employee relationship if an employer can not only tell the employee what to do but also how to do it.

It was argued that the definition given in Yewens v Noakes could not possibly be applied to professional football players because they are paid to display their skills and talents. The only thing under the club’s control is determining whether or not a particular player will be included on the team.

Judgment of the Court in Walker v Crystal Palace

Farwell J rejected this plea on the grounds that many workmen displayed their own initiative, much like football players, but were still bound by the directions of their master. In this instance, the player had agreed to adhere to detailed training instructions and to follow his captain’s directions on the field.

The Court of Appeal decided that it was sufficient that he was obliged to obey the general directions of the club even though it was obvious that he relied on his own judgment regarding how to play.

As a result, it was determined that the professional footballer had a contract of service with the club. He was therefore an employee.

Concluding it

The control test evolved through this case. It was immaterial that the club had no control over the exact manner in which the player played because it still had control in the form of training, discipline and methods of play.

Nevertheless, it may be difficult to apply this concept of control in many situations. That is why several other tests were developed by the courts over time to determine employment status.

List of references:

You might also like:

More from labour law:

Yewens v Noakes (1880) and The Control Test

Case name & citation: Yewens v Noakes (1880) 6 QBD 530

Court and jurisdiction: The Court of Appeal, England and Wales

The learned judge: Bramwell LJ

Area of law: Employment status under labour law

Case Overview (Yewens v Noakes)

Over the years, a number of criteria have been established by the courts for determining the nature of the employment relationship. The first test was the control test, which was initially established in the case of Yewens v Noakes (1880).

The following are the details of this historic case:

The case concerned a building owner and a person who occupied the premises. He was a clerk and was paid an annual salary of 150 pounds. The question arose as to whether or not the man should be considered an employee of the building owner in order for the premises to qualify for an exemption from the statutory tax duties. In this regard, Bramwell LJ stated that: “a servant is a person who is subject to the command of his master as to the manner in which he shall do his work”. The Court of Appeal held that the man in question was not a servant or an employee of the building owner because the owner had no control or influence over the man’s work and the manner in which he carried it out. Hence, there was no master-servant relationship.

The ‘control’ test

The control test which stems from this case was used by the courts in the 19th century. It focussed on the nature and degree of control exercisable by an employer over his employee. As per it, the courts determine whether the master controlled or had the right to control not only what the worker did but also the manner in which he did it.

That is to say, in the past, a contract of employment was presumed to be in place when an employer was in a position to direct an employee not only on what to do but also on how to do it and when to do it. On the other hand, self-employment was presumed to be the case when the employer exercised a lesser degree of control. But as the rate of technological change accelerated, it became obviously unrealistic to believe that the employer will have the expertise to control many of his employees who were becoming increasingly high-skilled. A pilot for an airline, for instance, cannot be claimed to be ‘controlled’ by the airline in any real sense while performing his or her duties.

As a result, the control test no longer serves as the single criterion. Although it is still significant and very important, it is no longer considered the only conclusive test. Many other tests have been developed by the courts too. Overall, a number of factors must be taken into consideration when addressing questions of employment status.

List of references:

You might also like:

More from labour law: