Yewen v Noakes [1880] 6 QBD 530<\/strong><\/p>\n The definition of an employee.<\/p>\n There was a statutory exemption for premises which were occupied by a \u201cservant\u201d or person occupying the premises \u201cfor the protection thereof.\u201d A man and his family occupied a number of rooms within an office building on the alleged basis that he was the caretaker of the building owner. The man was a clerk who was paid a salary of 150 pounds per annum.<\/p>\n The question arose as to whether the man constituted an employee of the building owner for the purposes of exempting the premises from statutory tax duties.\u00a0<\/p>\n The Court of Appeal held that an employee, or a servant to adopt the Court\u2019s nomenclature, is defined as a \u201cperson who is subject to the command of his master as to the manner in which he shall do his work.\u201d (pp 3-4). On the facts of the case, the Court held that the man was not a \u201cservant\u201d or an employee of the building owner as the owner had no right to control the man\u2019s work and manner in which it was done. The man earned a salary of 150 pounds per annum in his separate role as a clerk and merely enjoyed residence of the building with his family members. Thus, he did not constitute an employee of the building owner for tax purposes.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The definition of an employee. There was a statutory exemption for premises which were occupied by a \u201cservant\u201d or person occupying the premises \u201cfor the protection thereof.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[85],"class_list":["post-5733","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cases","tag-uk-law"],"yoast_head":"\nFacts<\/h3>\n
Issue<\/h3>\n
Decision \/ Outcome<\/h3>\n