Law of Torts, MV Act and

Consumer Protection
eSeries
S.3 and S.4
• Continuing from where we left off…
• The Test of Control as traditionally formulated was
based upon the social conditions of an earlier age
• It was well suited to govern relationships like
those between a farmer and an agricultural
laborer, a factory owner and an unskilled hand
• But the control test breaks down when applied to
skilled and particularly professional work
• It has thus not been treated as an exclusive test
• For instance, In Dharangadhara Chemical
Works Ltd v. State of Saurashtra (1957), the
Supreme Court states that:
a. Test of Control is not of universal application;
and
b. The question is whether due control and
supervision is exercised by the employer
• In Lee Tin Sang v. Chung Chi-Keung (1990) PC
Hong Kong, the Privy Council explained how
other factors such as:
- Ownership of tools
- Chance of profit
- Risk of loss
- Permanency of employment
Have to be considered.
• In Silver Jubilee Tailoring House v. Chief Inspector of Shops
(1974), the Supreme Court expanded on the point of
control and supervision, saying that it would be different
in different types of business
• In Hollis v. Vabu Pvt. Ltd. (2001), the Australian HC held
that a Courier company which had employed by written
‘contract for service’, a number of persons as bicycle
couriers who owned their own bicycles and bore the
expenses of running them but wore uniforms which bore
the logo of the company were liable for injury caused by
negligence of such couriers.
• In this context, it becomes interesting to
identify whether Uber drivers are in fact
employees considering the nature of their
contract.
• More on that tomorrow…