Subcontractor or 'Employee'?

[Junior8]

A look at Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher shows how muddy this water is and how important it is to be sure of the status of the person you are paying for a number of reasons. Otherwise you could be surprised by what a court decides after the event. If you did not have ELI and the court in a compenastion case used precedent to find that the person was an employee you could well be in difficulties it seems to me.

[dbuckley]

A few years back when I lived in the UK, I was a IT contractor, around the time that IR35 raised it's head.

 

It seems that the circumstances under which one can be anything other than an employee are reducing.

[kerry davies]

Thanks for that link Roger, had not known of it.

It seems highly likely that very few, if any, "normal" technicians in our game can claim to be legally self-employed because of the imbalance in the relationship. That appears to answer rorty's last query about big firms and little people.

 

In his particular one-to-one case he may get away with it but the relationship still verges on master-servant which makes it employee-employer.

 

A small confession. When I wrote; "Ask an expert" I hoped rorty would not. If he had we would never have got this far since the costs of ELI on top of decent, Doodson style, PLI are incredibly reasonable unless you are employing several permanent staff.

[norty303]

A small confession. When I wrote; "Ask an expert" I hoped rorty would not. If he had we would never have got this far since the costs of ELI on top of decent, Doodson style, PLI are incredibly reasonable unless you are employing several permanent staff.

 

Yes, I think the phone call would have been easier ;)

Just read the policy docs for my Allianz policy through Doodson and its got an ELI section of cover (which I haven't taken up this year). If its reasonable to add cover for the odd subby through the year, its probably worth just getting it when I renew next April.

[Junior8]

Thanks for that link Roger, had not known of it.

 

I included it to point out that the answer may not come from where you expect it. That's the trouble with all these issues - the precedent may come from something apparently unconnected. For example in the London Parking Tickets judgement that was so widely (and inaccurately) reported in the press last year the point of law used concerned market stall letting! I understand also from Phil Day that the ruling on police charging for events used a judgement concerning licensing adult shops. This judgement seems to me to say that you can put what you like in the contract - it's what you do that matters!