Lee v Lee's Air Farming Ltd
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 1960 |
| Year | 1960 |
| Date | 1960 |
| Court | Privy Council |
Company - Director - Managing director - Whether servant of company - Accident while working for company for wages - Whether company liable for compensation - “Worker” -
Section 3 (1) of the Workers' Compensation Act, 1922, of New Zealand, provides that if
“personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment is caused to a worker, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation,“and “worker” is defined in section 2 as “any person who has entered into or works under a contract of service … with an employer … whether remunerated by wages, salary, or otherwise.”
The appellant's husband, who had formed the respondent company for the purpose of carrying on the business of aerial top-dressing, was the controlling shareholder of the company, and was by its articles of association appointed governing director and employed at a salary as its chief pilot. In his capacity as governing director and controlling shareholder he exercised full and unrestricted control over all the operations of the company. Pursuant to its statutory obligations the company had insured itself against liability to pay compensation in the case of accident to him. While piloting an aircraft belonging to the company in the course of aerial top-dressing operations the aircraft crashed and he was killed. On a claim by the appellant against the respondent company for compensation, alleging that at the time of the accident her husband was a “worker” employed by the respondent company within the meaning of the Workers' Compensation Act, 1922, as amended: —
Held, that the deceased was a “worker” within the meaning of the Act. His position as sole governing director did not make it impossible for him to be a servant of the company in the capacity of chief pilot, for he and the company were separate and distinct legal entities which could enter, and had entered, into a valid contractual relationship, which was not invalidated by the circumstances that the deceased was sole governing director in whom was vested the full government and control of the company and also the controlling shareholder. They were separate legal entities also so as to enable the company to give orders to the deceased. One person may function in dual capacities, and acting in one capacity give orders to himself in another capacity. The contractual relationship was that of master and servant, and a contract of service was entered into and operated and the deceased was a “worker” within the statutory definition.
APPEAL (No. 18 of 1960) from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand (December 18, 1958) holding on a case stated by the Compensation Court of New Zealand under the
The following facts are taken from the judgment of the Judicial Committee: The judgment of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand from which this appeal was brought, was given as their opinion upon a case stated by the judge of the Compensation Court. It was provided by rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the
“In any action or other proceeding the court or a judge thereof may state a case for the opinion of the Court of Appeal on any point of law arising in the action or proceeding.”
This procedure was adopted by the judge of the Compensation Court in the action which was brought by the appellant in respect of the death of her husband. She claimed £2,430 compensation on behalf of herself and her four infant children and she also claimed a sum for funeral expenses. The claim was made in reliance upon the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act, 1922, as amended by later statutes. The appellant's late husband died in an aircraft accident in Canterbury, New Zealand, on March 5, 1956, while engaged in the capacity of an aircraft pilot in aerial top-dressing operations. The claim of the appellant rested upon her allegation that at the time of his death her husband was a “worker” in that he was employed by the respondent company. The respondent company denied that the deceased was a “worker” within the meaning of the Workers' Compensation Act, 1922, and its amendments. It was provided by section 3 (1) of the Act as follows:
“3. — (1) If in any employment to which this Act applies personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment is caused to a worker, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with provisions of this Act.”
Under the relevant part of the statutory definition the term “worker” meant
“any person who has entered into or works under a contract of service or apprenticeship with an employer, whether by way of manual labour, clerical work, or otherwise, and whether remunerated by wages, salary, or otherwise.”
The denial of the respondent company that the deceased was a “worker” was based on the fact that the deceased was at the time of the accident the controlling shareholder and governing director of the respondent company. In 1954 the deceased had instructed a firm of public accountants in Christchurch to form a company for the purpose of conducting an aerial top-dressing business. On August 5, 1954, “Lee's Air Farming Limited,” the respondent company, was incorporated. The nominal capital of the company was £3,000 divided into three thousand shares of £1 each. The deceased was allotted 2,999 shares; the remaining share according to the memorandum of association was to be taken by a solicitor. The articles of association included the following:
“32. Subject as hereinafter provided Geoffrey Woodhouse Lee shall be and he is hereby appointed governing director and subject to the provisions of clause 34 hereof shall hold that office for life and the full government and control of the company shall be vested in him and he may exercise all the powers and authorities and discretions vested in the directors generally and that notwithstanding he is the sole director holding office and he may exercise all the powers of the company which are not by statute required to be exercised by the company in general meeting and any minute entered in the minute book of the company's proceedings signed by the governing director shall, in any matter not expressly required by statute to be done by the company in general meeting have the effect of a resolution of the company.
“33. The company shall employ the said Geoffrey Woodhouse Lee as the chief pilot of the company at a salary of £1,500 per annum from the date of incorporation of the company and in respect of such employment the rules of law applicable to the relationship of master and servant shall apply as between the company and the said Geoffrey Woodhouse Lee.
“34. The governing director may retire from office upon giving one month's notice in writing of his intention so to do, and the office of governing director shall be vacated if the governing director (a) ceases to be a director by virtue of section 148 of the Act; or (b) becomes bankrupt or enters into a composition with his creditors; or (c) becomes prohibited from being a director by reason of any order made under section 216 or 268 of the Act; or (d) becomes of unsound mind or becomes a protected person under the
; or (e) becomes incapable of carrying out the duties of a director. Aged and Infirm Persons Protection Act, 1912 “35. The governing director may at any time convene a general meeting of the company.
“36. The governing director shall not be disqualified by his office from holding any office or place of profit in the company or from contracting with the company whether as vendor, purchaser or otherwise, nor shall any such contract or arrangement or any contract or arrangement entered into by or on behalf of the company in which the governing director shall be interested be avoided nor shall the governing director be liable to account for any profit realised by any such contract or arrangement by reason of the governing director holding such office or of the fiduciary relations thereby established.
“DIRECTORS
“37. If and whenever there shall cease to be a governing director the number of directors of the company shall not be more than lour or less than two...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
- Clark v Clark Construction Initiatives Ltd and another
-
Secretary of State for Business Enterprise & Regulatory Reform v Neufeld and Another
...how he did it, and this control remained the control of the company whoever might be the agent empowered by the company to exercise it”. ([1961] AC 12, at 21) The argument for the company was that “[c]ontrol means a real living person to control another real living person” ([1961] AC 12, ......
- Lee Eng Eow v Mary Lee and Another
- Road Transport Industry Training Board v Readers Garage Ltd
-
Table of Cases
...2004 CarswellOnt 2879 (SCJ) ..................................................................... 459 Lee v Lee’s Air Farming Ltd (1960), [1961] AC 12, [1960] 3 All ER 420, [1960] 3 WLR 758, 104 Sol J 869 (PC) ................................. 140 Lehndorff Canadian Pension Properties Ltd v......
-
The investor as a member of a company : a reflection on misused concept
...of the company has any property legal or equitable in the assets of the corporation.” Lee v Lee Air Farming Ltd [1960] 3 All ER 420, [1961] AC 12 (PC) at 26 per Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest. LLJ Vol. 20 No. 1 & 2 3 discover who these investors are, whose investments sustain the company, and ......
-
Introduction to Corporate Law
...Act , RSO 1990, c F.29 [ Fraudulent Conveyances Act ], and the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act , RSC 1985, c B-3. 127 (1960), [1961] AC 12 (PC). 128 Another issue relating to the nature of the corporate personality arises in the context of criminal proceedings against the corporation ......
-
THE COMPANY AND ITS DIRECTORS AS CO-CONSPIRATORS
...a director’s liability for civil conspiracy. 50 Citing Saloman v A Saloman & Co Ltd[1896] AC 22 and Catherine Lee v Lee’s Air Farming Ltd[1960] 3 WLR 758 in support: see [2009] 2 SLR 318 at [27]—[29]. 51 [2009] 2 SLR 318 at [29]. 52 [2009] 2 SLR 318 at [31]—[32]. 53 [2009] 2 SLR 318 at [35]......