| Summary |
JURISDICTION – Whether applicant employee – Applicant in de facto relationship with respondent’s director – Ran family home while director developed respondent - Applicant paid “salary” in accordance with employment agreement - Paid household expenses out of “salary” – Agreement described position as customer service role - Applicant believed helped in sense work she did freed up director to work with customers – However, did not carry out any activities set out in agreement and “worked” in family home – While definition of employee included home worker did not mean same as home-maker – Homemaking activities in partnership with director did not amount to work for respondent at all, let alone work done in course of respondent’s business as importer and distributor of car parts – Payments applicant received not payments for services provided to respondent – Employment agreement made no difference to conclusion – Clear “employment” in document bore no resemblance to reality of arrangement and not valid – Although paid as if employee and “employment” status reflected in accounts, not a matter for Authority – No genuine employment relationship – No jurisdiction |