Talk:Market Investigations Ltd v Minister for Social Security

Untitled
If anyone is in a position to make a link to a published Pdf scan of the printed case report and judgement it would make this case very useful. Otherwise it is just pointless, as the most salient aspect of this case appears to be the fact that instead of building on previous case law in the usual (rigorous and polished) manner, it states its (novel) premise as being well established, then proceeds to take it for granted. We need to know every word the judge spoke, so that we can distinguish the "obiter dicta" from the actual judicial reasoning. It is the judicial reasoning (upon which a judgement is founded) that creates case law, not the sound bites that get repeatedly quoted (often with negligible context given). 92.237.13.56 (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I went to the Stirling University Law Library and scanned this case, for the very reasons you have mentioned. For me, the ratio decidendi of this case is fairly simple - the parties genuinely believed that they had created a self-employed contract, but they were wrong! The reason J Cooke ruled that the contracts were objectively contracts of service was clear; he decided that as a matter of fact, the  (which Market Investigations made available to all individuals that interviewed on their behalf) must objectively be considered to be part of the binding contract between Market Investigations and Mrs Irvine. Having made this finding of fact, J Cooke had no real doubt that Market Investigations had a clear right of control over how Mrs Irvine did her work, even though they did not control when she did her work. For this reason he was clear that each assignment that Mrs Irvine carried out was a separate contract of service. J Cooke went on to 'check' his decision by looking to see if there was anything in the case that was inconsistent with his ruling - in following this process he might have been guided by the process outlined in  (By J MacKenna, the previous year). It is at this point that he started to talk about 'providing services as a person in business on their own account'.  As far as I can see, all these remarks by J Cooke are obiter dicta, yet they are the remarks which HMRC stress in their coverage of the case! As James Thurber once said: "Go figure". 82.32.5.128 (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * To add to what I said on the second of September; I really don't know how you get permission to post a scan of a 1969 Judgement. I would be interested in finding out if I can do this myself, but at the moment I am preoccupied with making use of the knowledge I gained by actually reading J Cooke's judgement. 82.32.5.128 (talk) 14:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)