From Law wiki, the wiki for law research

[1952] 1 TLR 101 (CA). This rather complicated case concerned whether the defendant employer could be held liable under the principles ofvicarious liability for the publication in breach of copyright of various 'trade secrets' by one of its employees. The employee worked partly for the employer, and partly for the employee. The question then arose whether there was a sufficient 'master-servant' relationship between the employer and the employee for there to be vicarious liability. Under the tradition 'control test', the question was whether there was a 'contract for services', or a 'contract of service'. This question was not readily answerable in the present case. It was held that a better test is these circumstances was whether the tort-feasor was carrying out duties that were an 'integral part of the business', in which case vicarious liability would extend to the employer, or merely ancilliary to the business.