Liverpool Law Review

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 19–48 | Cite as

The Parallel Historical Path of Company and Labour Law



The paper explores the conceptual foundations of the legal principles that govern the operation of company and labour law. The paper argues that far from seeing the doctrinal architecture of company and labour law as a product of apolitical and objective rules a paradigm shift is required. The rule book conception of law is a misguided methodological framework. In sharp contrast to that methodology this paper avers the legal principles governing company and labour law must be viewed through the prism of the sovereignty of property rights. In effect, the viewpoint that law is an autonomous domain is eschewed in this paper. Instead the historical, social and economic forces directing legal developments in two crucial fields are illuminated. The upshot is a study illustrating the dialectical bond that exists between company and labour law. The paper is divided into three parts. The first part examines the way prescriptive law is the keystone of labour law. The role of the control test and implied terms are scrutinized in order to illuminate the way that the common law of employment facilitates the hegemony of managerial prerogatives. Apolitical legalism plays no role in this sphere of law. The second part considers the juridical forms that entrench the power of shareholders and managers in the modern company. In this sphere of law the courts sanction facilitative law by prioritizing the voluntarist assumptions of business people. The curve of legal reasoning in company law is dominated by the courts treating the leading personnel in companies as the personification of economic relations. The owners and administrators of capital are regarded as occupying the commanding heights of the economy, and are given judicial support to choose their own constitutional arrangements. Shareholders and directors are vested with a large degree of autonomy and discretion that is translated into the capacity to opt in and out of the regulatory web. The final part sums up the factors that underpin the triumph of the prescriptive and facilitative law that dominates labour and company law.


Company and labour law Master and servant Legal dialectics Wages Corporate law Historical context 


  1. Anderman, S. 2004. Termination of employment: whose property rights? In The future of labour law, ed. C. Barnard, S. Deakin, and G.S. Morris. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  2. Atiyah, P. 1979. The rise and fall of freedom of contract. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  3. Berle, A.A., and G.C. Means. 1962. The modern corporation and private property. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Bottomley, S., and A. Forsyth. 2007. The new corporate law: Corporate social responsibility and employees’ interests. In The new corporate accountability, ed. D. McBarnet, A. Voiculescu, and T. Campbell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brodie, D. 2004. Protecting dignity in the workplace: The vitality of mutual trust and confidence. The Industrial Law Journal 33: 349–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Collins, H. 1986. Market power, bureaucratic power, and the contract of employment. The Industrial Law Journal 15(1): 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Collins, H. 2003. The law of contract. London: LexisNexis.Google Scholar
  8. Cottrell, P.L. 1980. Industrial finance 1830–1914. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  9. Davies, P.L. 2008. Gower and Davies’, principles of modern company law. London: Sweet and Maxwell.Google Scholar
  10. Davis, D.B. 1966. The problem of slavery in western culture. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Deakin, S., and F. Wilkinson. 2006. The law of the labour market. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Finch, V. 1992. Company directors: who cares about skill and care? The Modern Law Review 55(2): 200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fox, A. 1974. Beyond contract: work, power and trust relations. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
  14. Freedland, M. 2003. The personal employment contract. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Friedman, L.M. 1965. Contract law in America. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gamble, A., and G. Kelly. 2000. The politics of the company. In The political economy of the company, ed. J. Parkinson, A. Gamble, and G. Kelly. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  17. Gava, J. 2002. Law reviews: good for judges, bad for law schools? Melbourne University Law Review 26: 566.Google Scholar
  18. Gower, L.C.B. 1969. The principles of modern company law. London: Stevens.Google Scholar
  19. Grantham, R. 1998. The doctrinal basis of the rights of company shareholders. Cambridge Law Journal 57(3): 557.Google Scholar
  20. Harris, R. 2000. Industrializing English law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harvey, D. 1984. The limits to capital. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  22. Herman, E.S. 1982. Corporate control, corporate power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hill, C. 1996. Liberty against the law. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  24. Hill, J. 2000. Vision and revisions of the shareholder. American Journal of Comparative Law 48: 47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hirst, P. 1979. On law and ideology. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  26. Hobsbawm, E.J. 1975. Industry and empire. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  27. Hunt, B.C. 1969. The development of the business corporation in England 1800-186. New York: Russell and Russell.Google Scholar
  28. Ibbetson, D.J. 1999. A historical introduction to the law of obligations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Ireland, P. 1999. Company law and the myth of shareholder ownership. The Modern Law Review 62: 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ireland, P. 2000. Defending the rentier: corporate theory and the reprivatisation of the public company. In The political economy of the company, ed. J. Parkinson, A. Gamble, and G. Kelly. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  31. Ireland, P. 2010. Limited liability, shareholder rights and the problem of corporate irresponsibility. Cambridge Journal of Economics 34: 843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kahn-Freund, O. 1951. Servants and independent contractors. The Modern Law Review 14: 505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kahn-Freund, O. 1972. Labour and the law. London: Stevens.Google Scholar
  34. Kirby, M. 2004. Judicial activism. London: Sweet and Maxwell.Google Scholar
  35. Kostal, R.W. 1994. Law and English railway capitalism 1825–1875. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  36. Lane, T. 1974. The union makes us strong: the British working class its politics and trade unionism. London: Arrow Books.Google Scholar
  37. Mayanja, J. 2007. Promoting enhanced enforcement of directors’ fiduciary obligations: the promise of public law sanctions. Australian Journal of Corporate Law 20: 163.Google Scholar
  38. McQueen, R. 2009. A social history of company law. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  39. Parkinson, J.E. 1996. Corporate power and responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Polanyi, K. 1971. The great transformation. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  41. Posner, R. 1969. Natural monopoly and its regulation. Stanford Law Review 21(3): 636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Posner, R. 1975. The economic approach to law. Texas Law Review 53: 763–764.Google Scholar
  43. Posner, R. 1986. Economic analysis of law. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  44. Posner, R. 2008. How judges think. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Redmond, P. 2009. Companies and securities law. Sydney: Thomson Reuters.Google Scholar
  46. Riley, J. 2006. The evolution of the contract of employment post workchoices. University of New South Wales Law Journal 29(1): 166, 174.Google Scholar
  47. Seidman, R.B. 1989. Contract law, the free market, and state intervention: a jurisprudential perspective. In State, society and corporate power, ed. M.R. Tool, W.J. Samuels. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  48. Selznick, P. 1969. Law, society, and industrial justice. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  49. Smith, A. 1986. The wealth of nations books I–III. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  50. Smith, G.F. 1992. An uneven playing field: the contract of employment and labour market regulation. The Economic and Labour Relations Review 3(1): 107.Google Scholar
  51. Stokes, M. 1986. Company law and legal theory. In Legal theory, common law, ed. W. Twining. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  52. Thompson, E.P. 1990. Whigs and hunters. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  53. Tool, M.R., and W.J. Samuels (eds.). 1989. State, society and corporate power. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  54. Vettori, S. 2007. The employment contract and the changed world of work. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  55. Wedderburn, L. 1986. The worker and the law. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  56. Wedderburn, L. 1993. Companies and employees: common law or social dimension. The Law Quarterly Review 109: 245.Google Scholar
  57. Wightman, J. 1996. Contract: a critical commentary. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LawMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations