Pile v Minister for Industry and Commerce

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1942
• Date: 01 January 1942
• Court: Supreme Court

(H.C., S.C.),

Pile

and

Minister for Industry and Commerce

Excepted employments - Domestic servant - Premises specially constructed as block of residential flats - Person employed as caretaker, hall porter and general servant - Operation of passenger lift and other services for benefit of tenants included in employment - Other premises held by employer and let with similar facilities - Whether "employment in domestic service" - Whether "employed in any trade or business" - Unemployment insurance Act, 1920 (10 11 Geo. 5, c. 30), s. 10, sub-s.1 (1); s. 47. sub-s. 2; First Schedule, Part I(a), Part II (b).

By s. 1 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, all persons of the age of sixteen and upwards, engaged in any of the employments specified in Part I of the First Schedule to the Act, not being employments specified in Part II of that Schedule, are to be insured against unemployment in manner provided by the Act. The "excepted employments"specified in Part II (b) of the Schedule include "employment in domestic service, except where the employed person is employed in any trade or business carried on for the purposes of gain." G. K. had been in the employment of F. P., who was tenant for life under her husband's will of certain premises. These premises had been specially constructed as a block of ten residential flats, two on each floor, fitted with a passenger lift. F. P. did not reside in any part of the premises and the separate flats were let by her to tenants. G. K.lived on the premises and, in addition to operating the lift —which occupied a considerable part of his time —he also performed the following services: —cleaning the hall, stairs and basements and also any flats which might be vacant, bringing every morning to each tenant a supply of coal through a hand-lift, answering enquiries and directing callers to the various flats, receiving parcels and messages for the tenants and leaving parcels for them outside their hall doors. F. P. was also tenant for life of other premises consisting of four residential flats let to tenants who were provided with similar services to those rendered by G. K. but there was nothing in the contracts of tenancy to entitle these tenants or those occupying the first-mentioned flats, to such services. Held by Gavan Duffy J., affirming the decision of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, that G. K.was not engaged in an "employment in domesticservice" within the meaning of Part II (b) of the First Schedule to...