Three tests in Employment law

In tax law (at least, many years ago!) the matter of employee / self-employed hinged upon the expression “supervision, direction and control”

When I left full-time employment with Financial Training Ltd and restarted the following day as a self-employed freelance lecturer, the Inland Revenue tried to tax me as though I were still an employee.

I was successfully able to argue that FT did not supervise my teaching, did not direct me how to teach and most certainly did not control my freelance teaching activities (nor the contractors to whom I provided my services including BPP, ATC and others both in the UK and abroad)

As to integration, my personal services were not integral to the operation of these companies. If I had not performed for them, they would have found an alternative provider so my role was not integral to the future of the companies. If, by some carelessness on my part, these companies’ students had suffered (particularly) financial harm, could they have held FT, BPP etc liable in the capacity as my employer? No!

Because I wasn’t an employee. I was self-employed.

However, IF I had remained as an employee and IF by my actions some student(s) had been harmed, could the students hold FT etc vicariously liable to compensate for the damage caused by me? Yes!

An employer is vicariously liable for the damage caused by their employees whilst those employees are acting within the course of their employment. Clearly if, at a weekend barbecue, my careless actions result in severe burns to another barbecue guest, the guest would not be able successfully to hold FT vicariously liable because I would no longer be acting in the course of my employment.

Does that explain it satisfactorily?

Incidentally, I notice that you face the exam in just 2 weeks’ time. Between now and then, please feel free to ask any (law!) questions on this forum and I shall get back to you

OK?

You know, as always, you’re very welcome