John was hired by Complex Plc to install the plumbing in the east wing of the head office. John agreed that the work would cost $1 million and that it will last for three weeks. John's worker Tom fell from a scaffold that was defective and sued Complex Plc for damages on the ground that Complex Plc was his employer and was supposed to provide a safe working environment for its workers. Complex Plc argues that Tom was not an employee and that John provided his own scaffold to do the work. Complex Plc argued that Tom was not entitled to compensation. Advise Complex Plc on their chances of success of their defence with reference to the different tests used by the Courts to determine who is an employee and under a contract of service as opposed to an independent contractor who is under a contract for services. Please use case law also to support your argument