UNIVERSITY OF THE COMMONWEALTH CARIBBEAN
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT
END OF SEMESTER ASSESSMENT/2020
FALL SPRING SUMMER
GROUP ASSIGNMENT (6 STUDENTS MAXIMUM)
LEGAL CONCEPTS FOR COMMERCE (LAW101)
GROUP ASSESSMENT [100 Marks] –
40% Weighting
The evaluation of this assignment will be based on your ability to define and explain the
principles in English Law and their application to a specific situations.
Your discussion and presentation should be concise, thoughtful and supported by relevant
Case Law..
The Project should be prepared in Microsoft Word. Each section should be discussed
separately. Your project document should use referenced Cases to substantiate your points.
Writing Style. Groups are expected to adopt a writing style that is appropriate to academic
writing. Edit your work carefully for errors in grammar, spelling punctuation and be precise in
your choice of words and expression of ideas.
The assignment document should not exceed 15 pages (prepared using Times New Roman
and double spaced).
The reference pages, cover page (UCC standardised) and table of contents are not
considered as a part of the 15 pages.
Page 1 of 6
UNIT 8: LAW OF TORTS
Sydney is a professional boxer. During one fight he received a
succession of punches from his opponent Tanzeer and seemed to
become confused. Urban, the referee, however did not stop the fight
or give Tanzeer any warning. At the start of the next round Tanzeer
landed a punch on Sydney’s jaw and knocked him out. Sydney
received emergency treatment from Victor, a doctor on duty at the
ringside and was then taken by ambulance to hospital. On the way to
hospital his condition deteriorated but Wanda, the paramedic in the
ambulance, decided that it would be advisable to get him to hospital as
quickly as possible rather than to carry out an emergency procedure in
the ambulance. At the hospital he was treated by Xain, a consultant,
but has suffered severe and permanent brain damage.
The medical experts are all now agreed (a) that no fault can be found
with the treatment provided by Victor or Xain and (b), that, if Wanda
Sydney is a professional boxer. During one fight he received a
succession of punches from his opponent Tanzeer and seemed to
become confused. Urban, the referee, however did not stop the fight
or give Tanzeer any warning. At the start of the next round Tanzeer
landed a punch on Sydney’s jaw and knocked him out. Sydney
received emergency treatment from Victor, a doctor on duty at the
ringside and was then taken by ambulance to hospital. On the way to
hospital his condition deteriorated but Wanda, the paramedic in the
ambulance, decided that it would be advisable to get him to hospital as
quickly as possible rather than to carry out an emergency procedure in
the ambulance. At the hospital he was treated by Xain, a consultant,
but has suffered severe and permanent brain damage.
The medical experts are all now agreed (a) that no fault can be found
with the treatment provided by Victor or Xain and (b), that, if Wanda
Sydney is a professional boxer. During one fight he received a
succession of punches from his opponent Tanzeer and seemed to
become confused. Urban, the referee, however did not stop the fight
or give Tanzeer any warning. At the start of the next round Tanzeer
landed a punch on Sydney’s jaw and knocked him out. Sydney
received emergency treatment from Victor, a doctor on duty at the
ringside and was then taken by ambulance to hospital. On the way to
hospital his condition deteriorated but Wanda, the paramedic in the
ambulance, decided that it would be advisable to get him to hospital as
quickly as possible rather than to carry out an emergency procedure in
the ambulance. At the hospital he was treated by Xain, a consultant,
but has suffered severe and permanent brain damage.
The medical experts are all now agreed (a) that no fault can be found
with the treatment provided by Victor or Xain and (b), that, if Wanda
had successfully carried out the difficult emergency procedure, Sydney
would probably not have suffered the severe brain damage but would
never have made a full recovery and would not have been able to
resume his boxing career.
Advise Sydney.
Sydney is a professional boxer. During one fight he received a
succession of punches from his opponent Tanzeer and seemed to
become confused. Urban, the referee, however did not stop the fight
or give Tanzeer any warning. At the start of the next round Tanzeer
landed a punch on Sydney’s jaw and knocked him out. Sydney
received emergency treatment from Victor, a doctor on duty at the
ringside and was then taken by ambulance to hospital. On the way to
hospital his condition deteriorated but Wanda, the paramedic in the
ambulance, decided that it would be advisable to get him to hospital as
Page 2 of 6
quickly as possible rather than to carry out an emergency procedure in
the ambulance. At the hospital he was treated by Xain, a consultant,
but has suffered severe and permanent brain damage.
The medical experts are all now agreed (a) that no fault can be found
with the treatment provided by Victor or Xain and (b), that, if Wanda
had successfully carried out the difficult emergency procedure, Sydney
would probably not have suffered the severe brain damage but would
never have made a full recovery and would not have been able to
resume his boxing career.
Advise Sydney.
1. Fatima works at the Kempston “Living History” Museum as a part-time assistant.
Her agreement with the museum provides that she is self-employed.
It also states that she is free to either accept or reject work when it is offered to her and that
she can decide when to take holidays. Fatima is only paid for the hours she actually works.
Fatima is supplied with a uniform, which she has to wear and is required to obey the
reasonable orders of the museum’s manager.
For the last two years, she always worked on Saturdays and Sundays and has been offered
extra hours during school holidays (including half-term holidays).
On 23 October 2013, during half-term, Georgina, a girl in a wheelchair, was visiting the
museum with her mother, Harriet. Harriet was pushing Georgina‟s wheelchair. There were
steps leading from the entrance hall into the museum and a lift for wheelchair users.
Fatima helped Georgina and her mother to use the lift. When Fatima shut the gate of the lift,
she unfortunately closed it on Georgina’s fingers and fractured Georgina’s finger.
REQUIRED
(a) Explain the legal tests for establishing whether or not a duty of care exists in
negligence.(4 marks)
.
(b) Applying these tests, explain whether Fatima owes a duty of care to Georgina.(4 marks)
After carefully analysing the Caparo test and the scenario presented, it is clear that Fatima owes
a duty of care to Georgina. While Georgina was entering the lift as she is a wheelchair user, both
Harriet and Fatima should have ensured that Georgina was securely in the lift. It is safe to say
Fatima carelessly closed the lift gate without doing the necessary due diligence, and though this
was not intentional, Georgina was harm due to Fatima's negligence. Ultimately, in the courts, the
judge will determine whether Fatima owes a duty of care to Georgina. However, with all the
evidence presented and based on the conditions of the Caparo Test, Fatima will likely be liable
for the fracture to Georgina's finger. Fatima was not careful enough, nor was she paying much
attention, or that would not have happened.
Page 3 of 6
(c) Explain the tests used to decide whether someone is an employee under a Contract of Service
or an Independent Contractor under a Contract for Services. (4 marks)
An agreement in which people are employed to do a specific job and operate strictly
under their employer’s directions is called a contract of service. Under this contract, the
employee is protected by labour laws, including minimum wages.
A Contract for Services is an agreement whereby a person is engaged as an independent
contractor to conduct agreed upon tasks at an agreed-upon price by their employer. The
independent contractor controls how the task is to be achieved, in what manner, and using what
methods and materials. However, the completed task must meet the requirements as stated by the
employer (Wee, Kok and Ling, 2020).
To determine if an employee is under a Contract of Service or a Contract for Service, the
courts should conduct the following test;
Control Test - Established by Lordship Bramwell B in Yewens v Noake, this test refers
to the level of control an employer has over its employees. The employer has the legal right to
control how the employee works, the division and enforcements of jobs, work time. In the case
of Walker v Crystal Palace, a skilled football player was given more freedom as to how to
perform his job, yet he was under the control of his master as he was under the direction of the
football club and his captain. His method of play, discipline, and training were all controlled
under his master; hence he was an employee. Presently, employees are more skilled and
professional, making the control test less effective (Distinction between Employee and
Independent Contractor, 2020).
Integration/Organization Test – this test seeks to determine whether or not an
employee’s work is an essential part of the business or only provides an occasional
service. Partially integrated employees are under a contract for service, while fully integrated
employees in the employer’s business are under the contract of service. Like the case of Jordon
& Harrison v MacDonald & Evans it was suggested that an individual is an employee if his work
is an integral part of the business even though the employer has no direct control over his
employee (Distinction between Employee and Independent Contractor, 2020).
Multiple factor/Mixed Test – this test looks at the situations on a much broader scale
than the control and integration test. Using the Mixed Test, the courts must consider several
factors to determine whether a person is under the contract of service or the contract for service.
Page 4 of 6
The factors are the power of choice, entitlement to wages or remuneration, the right of
suspension and dismissal, the right to control, number of working hours, regular working hours,
geographical limitation of work, the skills and also the perception of the society as it regards the
worker and the methods of appointment and termination. For example, in the case Ready-Mixed
Concrete (South East) v MPNI, each company driver must buy his vehicle and paint it in the
company’s colours. They must wear the company’s uniform as well and must be available for
work when needed. Their salary was paid based on the mileage rate for the work performed for
the company. Here, the drivers are independent contractors and not employees as they were
operating at their own financial risk (Employment Law – Additional Issues on Employees,
2020).
Mutuality obligation test – There cannot be Contract of Service if there is no mutual
obligation; this means both employer and employee are obligated. The employee is obligated to
perform work, and the employer is obligated to provide work. In the case of Carmicheal v
National Power Plc, there was no mutuality of obligation on the casual workers who were power
station tour guides. When work was available, they were asked to sign a statement stating that
they were offered employment as casual as required. The court held that this means they are not
employees but independent contractors due to their position as casual as required. They receive
payment based on the number of hours they work minus deductions for income tax and National
Insurance payments (Distinction between Employee and Independent Contractor, 2020).
(d) Applying these tests, explain whether Fatima is an employee or an Independent Contractor.
(2 marks)
Using the four tests mentioned above, it is clear that Fatima is an Independent Contractor. When
we observe the control test, we see where Fatima is free to either accept or reject work when
offered to her and decide when to take holidays. Though she is required to obey the museum’s
manager’s reasonable orders, her employer has no legal right to control how she works, the
division and enforcements of jobs, or her work time. Using the Integration Test highlights that
she is an Independent Contractor as she only works part-time, thus making her less integral in the
business’s essential operations. Lastly, we look at the multiple factor and mutuality test. In both
tests, we see where Fatima is fully responsible for her contribution to the organization; therefore,
her employer has no right to object to any decision she makes with regards to when she works or
how she works as there is no mutual obligation to work (Distinction between Employee and
Page 5 of 6
Independent Contractor, 2020).
Lawteacher.net. 2020. Distinction Between Employee And Independent Contractor. [online] Available at:
<https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/employment-law/distinction-between-employee-
and-independent-contractor-employment-law-essay.php>
Lawteacher.net. 2020. Employment Law – Additional Issues On Employees. [online] Available at:
<https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/employment-law/employment-law-additional-issues-
law-essays.php>
Wee, R., Kok, J. and Ling, O., 2020. The Difference Between Contract Of Service And Contract For
Services (Part 1). [online] Mahwengkwai.com. Available at: <https://mahwengkwai.com/the-
difference-between-contract-of-service-and-contract-for-services-part-1/>
Page 6 of 6
