| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 69/07 |
| Hearing date | 14 Feb 2007 |
| Determination date | 25 June 2007 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | L Brook ; N Francken |
| Location | Dunedin |
| Parties | Marshall v Corstorphine House Services Ltd |
| Summary | JURISDICTION - Whether employee or independent contractor - Applicant argued entered employment relationship despite request for contract payment - Thought could offset salary against losses from personal business - Authority found applicant knew tax losses only able to be offset if operating business on own account - Intended to be contractor - Terms of contract more closely resembled employment agreement - In practice, relationship operated as employment, with exception of payment of monthly fee by invoice - Applicant took paid leave and was expected to comply with respondent's policies - Respondent's administrative staff created nearly all invoices and payments made without GST - Applicant's personal and business tax records showed some evidence operated business on own account - Applicant rebuffed several attempts by respondent during relationship to treat him as employee - Respondent later provided applicant with proposed employment agreement and told him it wanted to change status - Applicant did not sign and respondent subsequently withdrew offer and gave notice existing contract would end - Payment arrangement could not be dismissed as just tax device - Applicant had to abide by consequences - Independent contractor - No jurisdiction - Gardener |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Jurisdiction |
| Cases Cited | Massey v Crown Life Insurance Co [1978] 1 WLR 676; [1978] 2 All ER 576;Telecom South v Post Office Union [1992] 1 ERNZ 711 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 69_07.pdf [pdf 33 KB] |