From Law wiki, the wiki for law research

[1951] 1 All ER 574 (CA). The claimant underwent a routine operation on his hand. The operation was incompetently performed, and made the claimant's condition much worse. He sued the health authority both in its own capacity, and as the employer of the medical staff involved under the principle ofvicarious liability. The question arose whether there was a 'master-servant' relationship between the health authority and the surgeon. In Collins v Hertfordshire cc 1947 it had been suggested that a surgeon was not the 'servant' of his employer, and his contract was a 'contract for services' and not a 'contract of service'. The Court of Appeal slightly deprecated this rather technical distinction, and decided that the heath authority in this case was the 'master' of people it employed on a routine basis, despite the professional nature of their duties.

In the case of Cassidy v Ministry of Health [1951] 2KB598, Somervell L. J. pointed out that, although the master of a ship may be employed by the owners, they had no power to tell him how to navigate his ship. So the absence of control in the case of an expert was not a barrier to the existence of a contract of service. This view was later reinforced in the 1965 case of Morren v Swinton and Pendlebury Borough Council [1965] 1WLR576.

The Integration Test

The Organisation or Integration Test has also been used, particularly for professional people where there is no right of control over the method of performance. It is based upon the concept that an employee is an integral part of the organisation, whereas a contractor performs work for the organisation but remains outside it.

E.g. in the case of Cassidy v Ministry of Health (1951)*, a resident surgeon in a hospital was held to be an employee, so that the hospital was liable for his negligence. And in Ferguson v John Dawson & Partners Ltd (1976), a labour – only sub- contractor in the building industry was held to be an employee for occupational safety reasons, so that the builder owed him a duty of care. This could be so even if he claimed to be self-employed for tax purposes. The court emphasised that it was more concerned with reality than with labels.