ESM7230 - Case Law: St John바카라 사이트檚 College School, Cambridge v Secretary of State for Social Security

Judgment 12 June 2000 (unreported)

Point at issue

Whether visiting instrumental teachers (바카라 사이트淰ITs바카라 사이트�) were engaged under contracts of service or contracts for services.### Facts

Mr B and Miss H were engaged as visiting instrumental teachers (바카라 사이트淰ITs바카라 사이트�) by St John바카라 사이트檚 College School (바카라 사이트淪t John바카라 사이트檚바카라 사이트�). St John바카라 사이트檚 regarded them as self-employed but the Contributions Agency ruled they were to be treated as employees by virtue of the Social Security (Categorisation of Earners) Regulations 1978 (바카라 사이트渢he Regulations바카라 사이트�).

St John바카라 사이트檚 disagreed with that ruling and asked for the matter to be decided formally by the Secretary of State for Social Security (바카라 사이트渢he SofS바카라 사이트�).

The SofS decided

  • neither Mr B nor Miss H were employed under a contract of service by St John바카라 사이트檚, so fell within the category of self-employed earner; but
  • they were to be treated as employees under the Regulations
  • St Johns was to be treated as the secondary contributor.

St John바카라 사이트檚 appealed on the grounds that

  • it was not an 바카라 사이트渆ducational establishment바카라 사이트� within the definition in Regulation 1(2) in the Regulations. That definition should be read as exhaustive rather than non-exhaustive.
  • the VITs were not in employment by it; they were 바카라 사이트渆mployed by바카라 사이트� the parents. All it did was act as 바카라 사이트渁gent바카라 사이트� by putting parents in touch with a VIT, providing the location for teaching, and collecting the fees.

Decision

The High Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that

  • St John바카라 사이트檚 was an 바카라 사이트渆ducational establishment바카라 사이트� within the meaning of Regulation 1(2); and
  • the VITs were in 바카라 사이트渆mployment by바카라 사이트� St John바카라 사이트檚.

Commentary

This case is noteworthy in that it is the first to deal with issues on which there is no previous NICs case law authority. Although it was decided on its own facts, the judgement is of general importance as it is gives some guidance on the meaning of 바카라 사이트渆ducational establishment바카라 사이트� in Regulation 1(2).

On the first point he concluded:

  • there is nothing in the legislation to restrict the meaning of 바카라 사이트渆ducational establishment바카라 사이트� in the way St John바카라 사이트檚 contended. 바카라 사이트淚ncludes바카라 사이트� was to be given its normal dictionary meaning.
  • there may be 바카라 사이트減laces바카라 사이트� which might not normally be regarded as an 바카라 사이트渆ducational establishment바카라 사이트� but which come within the definition in Regulation 1(2). For instance, a town hall would be an 바카라 사이트渆ducational establishment바카라 사이트� if there was instruction given there 바카라 사이트� say as part of an evening class designed to lead to a diploma 바카라 사이트� by a visiting instructor.
  • an 바카라 사이트渆ducational establishment바카라 사이트� does not necessarily have to be a building. For instance, if instruction is provided in the open air as part of a course designed to lead to a certificate, diploma, degree or professional qualification, that place (ie, the open air) will be an 바카라 사이트渆ducational establishment바카라 사이트�.
  • a 바카라 사이트減lace바카라 사이트� where instruction is provided will be an 바카라 사이트渆ducational establishment바카라 사이트� irrespective of who provides the instruction.
  • the course provided does not have to be part of the 바카라 사이트渆ducational establishment바카라 사이트檚바카라 사이트� own curriculum; Regulation 1(2) requires simply that the 바카라 사이트渆ducational establishment바카라 사이트� must be a 바카라 사이트減lace바카라 사이트� where such instruction is given.

On the second point, Mr Justice Munby commented that 바카라 사이트渆mployment바카라 사이트� in paragraph 4 (of the Regulations) meant 바카라 사이트渢he state of being employed바카라 사이트� and not the inclusive definition in section 122(1) of the Social Security Contributions & Benefits Act 1992 (바카라 사이트渆mployment바카라 사이트� includes any trade, business, profession, office or vocation바카라 사이트�바카라 사이트�). But the crucial issue was what was meant by 바카라 사이트渆mployment by바카라 사이트�?

For a more detailed commentary of the case see the NICs case law review on the IR Intranet at library/legal/NIC case review/NCR3/2000.