Australian Air Express Pty Limited V. Vabu (2001) 207 CLR 21
Contracts can be delegated through contract of service or contract for service and are regulated by the common law. The contract of service is comprised within an employee-employer contract, whilst the contract for service is based upon a contractor-client contract. A number of tests including, but not limited to; control, mutuality of obligation, integration, results and risk test, have been applied to denote the distinction between the two determinants. Hollis v Vabu (2001) 207 CLR 21 and Australian Air Express Pty Limited v Langford [2005] NSWCA 96 portrays the legalities of contracts and enables interpretation towards the existing nature of ‘contract of services’ and ‘contract for services’.
Hollis v Vabu (2001) 207 CLR 21 is a case …show more content…
This case originally was submitted to the District Court of New South Wales, later the appeal advanced to the Supreme Court of New South Wales. An employee of the appellant at the time of operating a forklift vehicle ran over the foot of the respondent (who was a delivery driver, delivering goods on behalf of the appellant in accordance with a owner/driver agreement in place). The respondent sued and claimed for liability from the alleged damages caused by the appellant’s forklift driver. The verdict from the lower courts concluded that there was vicarious liability present and that the respondent was able to receive compensation from the appellant. A dismissal in appeal was issued when the case appeared in the Supreme Court of New South Wales and both judges emphasized the respondent being seen upon as an independent contractor. The factors responsible in the decision by the Supreme Court were the respondent having ownership over the vehicle and the supplying of his own vehicle for his delegated working operations. Furthermore, having acquisition of an expensive piece of equipment justified the person being an independent contractor and that person had taken the risk of the fluctuations in profit or loss in the business. The High Court decision in the case of Scott v Davis (2000) 204 CLR 333, supports the …show more content…
[ONLINE] Available at: http://www.lawplus.ie/Contract_of_Service_and_Contra.864.0.html. [Accessed 13 May 2013].
Other:
Allens Arthur Robinson, 2011. Hollis V Vabu, Annual Review of Insurance Law; p. 95-96.
Marshall, B. 2006, Working it out – Employee or independent contractor?. The National Legal Eagle, 12:2, p. 14-19.
FINAL WORD COUNT (EXCL. FOOTNOTES): 1431
--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. Vabu v FCT (1996) 33 ATR 537
[ 2 ]. Hollis v Vabu (2001) 207 CLR 21
[ 3 ]. Humberstone v Northern Timber Mills [1949] 79 CLR 389
[ 4 ]. Bicycle Couriers – Implications of the High Court Decision In Hollis V Vabu Pty Ltd – Fact Sheet. Australian Taxation Office 2012 [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.ato.gov.au/content/20934.htm
[ 5 ]. “Employee or Independant Contractor?”: Australian Air Express Pty Limited -v- Langford [2005] NSWCA 96 | Curwoods Case Notes. 2013 [ONLINE] Available at: http://casenotes.curwoods.info/?p=694.
[ 6 ]. Australian Air Express Pty Limited v Langford [2005] NSWCA 96
[ 7 ]. Australian Air Express Pty Limited v Langford [2005] NSWCA 96; Hollis v Vabu (2001) 207 CLR 21
[ 8 ]. Zuijs v Wirth Bros Pty Ltd (1955) 93 CLR
Hollis v Vabu (2001) 207 CLR 21 is a case …show more content…
This case originally was submitted to the District Court of New South Wales, later the appeal advanced to the Supreme Court of New South Wales. An employee of the appellant at the time of operating a forklift vehicle ran over the foot of the respondent (who was a delivery driver, delivering goods on behalf of the appellant in accordance with a owner/driver agreement in place). The respondent sued and claimed for liability from the alleged damages caused by the appellant’s forklift driver. The verdict from the lower courts concluded that there was vicarious liability present and that the respondent was able to receive compensation from the appellant. A dismissal in appeal was issued when the case appeared in the Supreme Court of New South Wales and both judges emphasized the respondent being seen upon as an independent contractor. The factors responsible in the decision by the Supreme Court were the respondent having ownership over the vehicle and the supplying of his own vehicle for his delegated working operations. Furthermore, having acquisition of an expensive piece of equipment justified the person being an independent contractor and that person had taken the risk of the fluctuations in profit or loss in the business. The High Court decision in the case of Scott v Davis (2000) 204 CLR 333, supports the …show more content…
[ONLINE] Available at: http://www.lawplus.ie/Contract_of_Service_and_Contra.864.0.html. [Accessed 13 May 2013].
Other:
Allens Arthur Robinson, 2011. Hollis V Vabu, Annual Review of Insurance Law; p. 95-96.
Marshall, B. 2006, Working it out – Employee or independent contractor?. The National Legal Eagle, 12:2, p. 14-19.
FINAL WORD COUNT (EXCL. FOOTNOTES): 1431
--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. Vabu v FCT (1996) 33 ATR 537
[ 2 ]. Hollis v Vabu (2001) 207 CLR 21
[ 3 ]. Humberstone v Northern Timber Mills [1949] 79 CLR 389
[ 4 ]. Bicycle Couriers – Implications of the High Court Decision In Hollis V Vabu Pty Ltd – Fact Sheet. Australian Taxation Office 2012 [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.ato.gov.au/content/20934.htm
[ 5 ]. “Employee or Independant Contractor?”: Australian Air Express Pty Limited -v- Langford [2005] NSWCA 96 | Curwoods Case Notes. 2013 [ONLINE] Available at: http://casenotes.curwoods.info/?p=694.
[ 6 ]. Australian Air Express Pty Limited v Langford [2005] NSWCA 96
[ 7 ]. Australian Air Express Pty Limited v Langford [2005] NSWCA 96; Hollis v Vabu (2001) 207 CLR 21
[ 8 ]. Zuijs v Wirth Bros Pty Ltd (1955) 93 CLR