Yuen v The Royal Hong Kong Golf Club: PC 28 Jul 1997

(Hong Kong) The applicant was dismissed as a golf caddie after nine years. The Club denied that he had ever been an employee. He was issued by the club with a number, a uniform and a locker. Caddying work was allocated to available caddies in strict rotation. They were not obliged to make themselves available for work and received no guarantee of work. The club was not obliged to give them work or to pay anything other than the amount of the fee per round owed by the individual golfer for whom they had caddied. Other caddies had signed a form stating that they worked as independent contractors.
Held: (Majority) The applicant’s appeal was dismissed: ‘the only reasonable view of the facts is that the arrangements between the Club and Mr. Cheng went no further than to amount to a licence by the Club to permit Mr. Cheng to offer himself as a caddie for individual golfers on certain terms dictated by the administrative convenience of the Club and its members.’
Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann
[1997] UKPC 40, [1998] ICR 131
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedEdwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow HL 25-Jul-1955
The House was asked whether a particular transaction was ‘an adventure in the nature of trade’.
Held: Although the House accepted that this was ‘an inference of fact’, on the primary facts as found by the Commissioners ‘the true and only . .
CitedLee Ting Sang v Chung Chi-Keung PC 8-Mar-1990
Deciding Whether person was an employee
(Hong Kong) The Board considered the conclusion that the applicant stone mason was not an employee of the defendant: ‘even if I leaned towards the opposite conclusion, it would nevertheless be quite impossible for me to say that no tribunal . .
CitedReady Mixed Concrete Southeast Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance QBD 8-Dec-1967
Contracts of service or for services
In three cases appeals were heard against a finding as to whether a worker was entitled to have his employer pay National Insurance contributions on his behalf which would apply if he were an employee. He worked as an ‘owner-driver’
Held: The . .
CitedO’Kelly v Trusthouse Forte plc CA 1984
Workers claimed to be employees.
Held: They were not such. Their contract reserved the right to choose whether or not to work and for the employer not to give them work. The question of whether the facts which are found or admitted, fall one . .
CitedMarket Investigations v Minister of Social Security 1969
One way of deciding whether a person is self employed is to ask whether he can be said to be running a business of his own. Different tests may have to be combined to produce an overall answer.
Cooke J said: ‘The fundamental test to be applied . .

Cited by:
CitedQuashie v Stringfellows Restaurants Ltd EAT 26-Apr-2012
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS
Worker, Employee
Illegality
The Employment Judge erred in her conclusion that the Claimant was not an employee on each night she performed work and in the intervening . .
CitedUber Bv and Others v Aslam and Others CA 19-Dec-2018
Uber drivers are workers
The claimant Uber drivers sought the status of workers, allowing them to claim the associated statutory employment benefits. The company now appealed from a finding that they were workers.
Held: The appeal failed (Underhill LJ dissenting) The . .
CitedKhan v Checkers Cars Ltd EAT 16-Dec-2005
EAT The claimant worked as a private hire car driver for the respondent company which operated a taxi service based at Gatwick Airport. The claimant owned and was responsible for his own vehicle. He paid his own . .
CitedUber Bv and Others v Aslam and Others SC 19-Feb-2021
Smartphone App Contractors were as Workers
The court was asked whether the employment tribunal was entitled to find that drivers whose work was arranged through Uber’s smartphone application work for Uber under workers’ contracts and so qualify for the national minimum wage, paid annual . .
CitedStringfellow Restaurants Ltd v Quashie CA 21-Dec-2012
The company appealed against a decision that the claimant, a lap dancer at their premises, had been an employee. She performed for the entertainment of guests at the respondents’ clubs. She paid the respondent a fee for each night worked. Doing so . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 February 2021; Ref: scu.159253