Lee v. Lee's Air Farming Ltd. (October 26, 1960)
Privy Council of the United Kingdom

Parties:

• Appellant: Mrs. Lee (Eileen Mary Lee)
• Respondent: Lee's Air Farming Ltd. (the company)

Case Overview:
The case of Lee v. Lee's Air Farming Ltd. is a significant legal precedent in company law, addressing the complex issue of when a director or shareholder can also be considered an employee of the company, leading to potential compensation claims in case of injury or death in the course of employment.

Facts of the Case:

• Mr. Lee (Timothy George Lee) was the founder and a director of Lee's Air Farming Ltd., a New Zealand-based company engaged in aerial topdressing.
• Mr. Lee was also the majority shareholder of the company.
• Mrs. Lee, the appellant, was the wife of Mr. Lee.
• In 1958, Mr. Lee was tragically killed in a plane crash while he was piloting one of the company's aircraft during a topdressing operation.
• At the time of his death, Mr. Lee was both a director and a shareholder of the company.

Issue:

• The primary issue in this case was whether Mrs. Lee, as the widow of Mr. Lee, was entitled to claim workers' compensation under New Zealand law. Specifically, the question was whether Mr. Lee, as a director and shareholder, was also an employee of the company at the time of his death.

Decision and Rationale:

• The case was initially heard in New Zealand, where the Court of Appeal held that Mr. Lee was indeed an employee of the company at the time of his death. This decision made Mrs. Lee eligible for workers' compensation.
   
• However, the matter was appealed to the Privy Council in the United Kingdom, which delivered the final judgment.
   
• The Privy Council, in a unanimous decision, upheld the lower court's ruling that Mr. Lee was, in fact, an employee of the company at the time of his death.
   
• Lord Reid, delivering the leading judgment, emphasized that the mere fact that Mr. Lee was a director and shareholder did not automatically preclude him from also being an employee. He noted that it is possible for an individual to have multiple roles within a company, including that of an employee.
   
• Lord Reid highlighted that, in this case, Mr. Lee had entered into a contract of service with the company and was paid a salary. Additionally, he was subject to the company's control and direction in his capacity as a pilot.
   
• The Privy Council's judgment clarified that the determination of whether an individual is an employee depends on the specific contractual relationship and the duties performed, rather than titles or shareholdings.

Significance of the Judgement:
The Lee v. Lee's Air Farming Ltd. case is significant in several ways:

• Definition of Employee:

The case clarified that an individual can simultaneously hold the positions of director, shareholder, and employee within a company, depending on the contractual relationship and duties performed.
 
• Workers' Compensation:

The decision expanded the scope of individuals eligible for workers' compensation, ensuring that dependents of individuals who perform employee-like roles can claim compensation in the event of injury or death during the course of employment.
 
• Corporate Law:

The case underscores the importance of distinguishing between an individual's roles within a company and the legal consequences that arise from those roles.
 
• Contractual Clarity:

It highlights the significance of clear and legally sound employment contracts within companies, even for individuals with significant control or ownership stakes.
 
• International Precedent:

The judgment by the Privy Council served as an influential precedent in common law jurisdictions beyond New Zealand.

Overall, the Lee v. Lee's Air Farming Ltd. case contributed to the development of corporate and employment law by providing clarity on the legal status of individuals who hold multiple roles within a company. It emphasized that the determination of employment status should be based on contractual and factual considerations rather than formal titles or shareholding.