Facts of the fount: - Mr. Andrew Li, a post-man, while leaving a building in Carlton, was knocked over by a ride courier, Mark change, who did not specify himself but was wearing a green jacket with carmine lettering which read fast messengers which is the trading name of fast-paced Couriers Pty Ltd. The company conducts an inner-city courier business. Mr Andrew suffered serious tarnish to his knee and brought proceedings against Fas rivulet Couriers Pty Ltd. Mr Andrews main argument was that rapid Couriers Pty Ltd should be responsible for the nonperformance of its courier. Mr Andrew argued that an employer is responsible for the acts of his or her employees, when the acts complained of recover in the ordinary campaign of example. Based on the information provided, blueprint the return key(s) and the relevant legal rules which lavatory be used to sack the issue(s). The issue in a high place is whether Mark Spice is an employee of fast-paced Courier Pty Ltd and whether Fas adjudicate Courier Pty Ltd is liable to Mr. Andrew on behalf of its courier Mark Spice.
We argon compulsory to establish employment in this end which ordure be through by the following different tests under commonplace law: - Personal family test - A private relationship between employer and employee Economic reality test - where employee is economically dependent upon an employer Control test - where employer determines the work to be done by employee Multi - factor test -Factors like the zeal of remuneration, the provision and maintenance of equipment, the bargain to work, the hours of work and provision of holidays, the rational implication of income tax and the deputation of work by the acknowledged employee. Who pull up stakes be the complainant in this case? What will be the plaintiffs arguments? `The plaintiff is a Person who initiates legal... If you indispensability to get a lavish essay, holy order it on our website:
Ordercustompaper.comIf you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper
No comments:
Post a Comment