Martin v Galbraith Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 28 October 1942 |
| Date | 28 October 1942 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
Bread and other goods sold by bread-server from van belonging to baker - Weekly wage and bonus on sales paid by baker to bread-server - Customers selected by bread-server and bad debts payable by him - Legal relationship between baker and bread-server -Whether business "carried on" by baker or bread-server - Extension to a vehicle of the provisions of the Shops (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1938 - Whether baker or bread-server "proprietor of 'shop'" - Whether bread-server a "member of the staff of a 'shop'" - Meaning of "within or in the precincts of" in relation to a vehicle - Overtime pay - Member of staff working in excess of periods prescribed by Act - Offence on part of proprietor in permitting overtime work in excess of prescribed periods - Illegality of transaction -Whether such illegality vitiated claim by bread-server for overtime pay - Whether proprietor deemed under s. 20, sub-s. 6, to have agreed to pay overtime - Shops (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1938 (No. 4 of 1938), s. 2, sub-s. 1; s. 3, s. 6, s. 20, sub-ss. 2, 6 and 11; s. 27, sub-s. 2.
Plaintiff, a bread-server, was engaged by the defendants to go round with a horse and van, selling bread, confectionery and other goods supplied by the defendants in connection with their wholesale and retail business of bakers and confectioners. The horse and van were owned and maintained by the defendants and their name was prominently displayed on the van. The plaintiff was paid a weekly wage in addition to a discount on the sales of the defendants' goods, for which he accounted by cash or returns. He delivered goods to about 160 customers and was personally liable for all bad debts except the debts incurred by five special customers who were supplied on credit given by the defendants. The goods were sold by the plaintiff in a specified area allotted by the defendants, but no control was exercised over his movements, though, if he neglected his customers and did not improve after being checked, he was liable to be dismissed. At least 90 per cent. of the customerswere served within 10 yards of the van, and about 50 per cent. within 6 yards. Between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. came to the van and were served at the van, the remaining 70 per cent. to 75 per cent. were served at their houses; in the case of 14 or 15 shops on his round the plaintiff did not sell at the van but went into the shops to transact his business. The plaintiff claimed to be entitled to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sharda Sobhy v The Chief Appeals Officer, Minster for Employment Affairs and Social Protection, Ireland and The Attorney General
...long established in the authorities, that the court will not lend itself to the enforcement of an illegal contract. 50 . Martin v. Galbraith Ltd. [1942] I.R. 37 was decided against the backdrop of the relatively simple claim by the plaintiff for overtime pay, and the Supreme Court consider......
-
Re Dunne (a bankrupt)
...AC 234 1928 AER REP 575 ROSS & LEICESTER CORP, IN RE 1932 30 LGR 382 96 JP 459 GRAHAM v LEWIS 1888 22 QBD 1 MARTIN v MESSRS GALBRAITH LTD 1942 IR 37 1942 76 ILTR 94 SHOPS (CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT) ACT 1938 S3 AG v MANORHAMILTON CO-OPERATIVE LIVESTOCK MART LTD 1966 IR 192 AUCTIONEERS & H......
-
Hussein v Labour Court
...AER 683 RED SAIL FROZEN FOODS LTD & ORS (IN RECEIVERSHIP), IN RE 2007 2 IR 361 2006/51/10956 2006 IEHC 328 MARTIN v MESSRS GALBRAITH LTD 1942 IR 37 1942 76 ILTR 94 SHOPS (CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT) ACT 1938 S20 UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACT 1977 S8(11) UNFAIR DISMISSALS (AMDT) ACT 1993 S7(D) 2012/......
-
Hussein v The Labour Court
...agency in question was satisfied that the failure to obtain an employment permit was not their personal fault. Martin v. Galbraith, Ltd. [1942] I.R. 37 applied. 6. That the point raised as to whether or not the non-national notice party had standing to invoke the protection afforded by the ......