vicarious liability

• Barclays v claimants


  employers will not be laible for the actions of independent contractors -UKSC
• testing employment status


  whether a a person was providing; a contract of service - he or she would be an employee or contract for services - he or she would be an independent contractor.
• vicarious liability 


  where a third party has legal responsibility for the unlawful actions of another
• lister v hesley hall limited

  created the salmond test - an employment will be liable if the acts happening the course of employment).
• Salmond test


  an employer will be held liable for either a wrongful act they have authorised
• yewens v Noakes 


  the control test states whether the employer has the right to control what the employee did
• preforming rights society v mitchell + broker

  concerns the nature/degree of control
• short v JW henderson

  control test -power to select workers right to suspend + dismiss/ discretion of payment
• mersey docks v coggins + griffiths 


  if worker and equiptment is hired out - the employer is liable, but if it is the other way around the worker is liable.
• hawley v laminar leisure

  because the employer exercised so much control over the bouncer, the club was vicariously liable for his actions
• intergration test


  stevenson + harrison v Macdonald - established the test
• cox v ministry of justice 


  the courts decided that the tests for employment status were too narrow
• ready mixed concrete v minister of pensions 


  this case developed requirements to set out a broadened reality of employment
• the requirements for the multiple test

  employee agrees to provide work/skill in turn for a wage, employee impliedly accepts that the work will subject to the control of the employer, the contract is consistent of one between an employer and employee.