There are a variety of reasons why this question is important varying between ensuring that a consultant is responsible for its own work permit / labour compliance, that there is an arms length arrangement between the contracting party and the consultant so that performance deliverables are measured differently and structured differently to the employee relationship which attracts stringent labour protection regulations.
Our company wished to engage a senior executive, through his own consultancy business, to oversee our operations as managing director for renewable terms. We therefore needed to structure contractual arrangements properly to ensure the substance of the relationship – that is a consultancy, was reflected in the form of the relationship.
Hughes Krupica ensured that there was sufficient flexibility in the project description to ensure that even after certain projects were completed that obligations would continue in terms of management input. Further, Hughes Krupica drafted financial incentive provisions relating to the budget and profit and loss management thereby linking the consultancy to measurable deliverables.
Finally, Hughes Krupica handled the amendments and negotiations in an amicable, personable and transparent manner. This was important to us as our relationship with the consultant was only just beginning, and although the documents needed to be firm and clear, we did not wish to sour the relationship by being seen to be too aggressive over the documentations.
Hughes Krupica struck the correct balance whilst preserving our interests.