If the engager provides any necessary equipment this fact will
point towards the existence of a contract of employment. This is a
general principle, which has been applied by the courts over many
years. For example, see the judgment of the Privy Council in the
case of Lee Ting Sang v Chung Chi-Keung [1990] 2AC at p.383.
If the worker is required to provide any major item of
equipment that is fundamental to the work, this fact will be a
strong pointer towards self-employment.
However, little significance (in either direction) can be
attached to the provision of small tools where it is customary for
them to be provided. Examples include tradesmen such as carpenters
who commonly provide hand tools and chefs who commonly provide
knives, whether they be employees or self-employed. It is also
common for employees to use their own cars for the purposes of
their employment.
A worker who is required to, and does, provide major items of
equipment, which is a fundamental requirement of the contract, can
be distinguished from a worker who supplies only hand tools.
It is becoming increasingly common for both skilled and
semi-skilled workers, within the construction industry, to supply
power tools such as drills; saws; nail guns; angle grinders;
planes; routers etc. The provision and use of power tools is
usually the personal preference of an individual worker and it can
be common for workers to provide such tools irrespective of whether
they are self-employed or employed.
Whilst the purchase of power tools can vary in cost, and can,
in some instances, represent a significant personal outlay to an
individual, no monetary figure should be attached to the provision
of such tools, solely as a means in determining this factor. Each
case must be viewed on its own merits.
