Legal Case Brief
Stevenson, Jordan Harrison Ltd v MacDonald & Evans [1952] 1 TLR 101
Definition of an employee under a ‘contract of service’ for the purposes of determining the copyright of a work.
Facts
An engineer wrote a book that used knowledge that he acquired whilst he was working for a firm in different capacities. Section 5(1) of the Copyright Act 1911 provides that that if the author of a work was under “a contract of service,” then the first owner of the copyright shall be the person by whom the author was employed.
Issues
The question arose as to whether the person was considered to be an employee under a “contract of service” for the purposes of allotting copyright to the employer under Section 5(1) of the Copyright Act 1911.
Decision/Outcome
The Court distinguished between a “contract of service” and “contract for services” provided to the firm. The Court applied the traditional ‘control test’ concerning whether the employer has the right to control the way in which a person does the work. The Court further stipulated that a person is considered an employee under a “contract of service” when the work is integrated in that of the business and considered an integral part of the business, whereas an independent contractor for services is merely an accessory to the business and, thus, not an employee. On the facts of the case, the Court concluded that the engineer’s contract was mixed between the two at different times. It held that the engineer was the author of the work, but that specific material that he acquired whilst he was an employee fell within the Copyright Act 1911 and should be excluded from the publication.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case brief remains accurate as a summary of the 1952 decision and its legal significance at the time. The integration test articulated by Denning LJ in this case continues to be cited in employment law alongside later tests developed by the courts.
Readers should be aware of several important developments. First, the Copyright Act 1911 has long been repealed and replaced, successively, by the Copyright Act 1956 and then the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which remains the current statute. Under section 11(2) of the 1988 Act, where a work is made by an employee in the course of their employment, the employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work, subject to any agreement to the contrary. The underlying principle discussed in the case therefore survives, but the statutory framework is entirely different.
Second, on the employment status question more broadly, the control test and integration test have been substantially supplemented by later judicial developments, including the multiple/economic reality test affirmed in Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2 QB 497, and more recently by the Supreme Court’s consideration of worker status in Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5. The article’s description of the integration test as part of the legal landscape is still accurate, but students should understand that it is now one of several tools courts use rather than a definitive or self-sufficient test.
The case brief is therefore useful for understanding the historical development of employment status tests and the copyright ownership rules that inspired them, but should be read alongside current statute and more recent case law.
