Market Investigations Ltd v Minister of Social Security [1969] 2 QB 173
Definition of an employee under a ‘contract of service’.
Facts
A woman was engaged by a market research company to act as an interviewer on a part-time basis. For each particular survey, she would conduct interviews in exchange for payment. She was required to work for a certain number of days at a time during each occasion, follow a comprehensive ‘Interviewer’s Guide’ and comply with other contractual terms.
Issues
The question arose as to whether extent and degree of control exercised by the company over the woman qualified her as an “employed person” under a contract of service for the purposes of the National Insurance Act 1965.
Decision/Outcome
Firstly, the Court stipulated that employment is determined by the degree and extent of control that a company exercises over the person’s performance of the task to show ‘a master and servant’ relationship. Secondly, the Court held that in order to distinguish between a contract ‘of service’ and ‘for services,’ the test to be applied is: whether the person is engaging the services “as a person in business on his own account.” Considering the surrounding circumstances and contractual provisions, if the answer to the question is “no,” the person is an employee under a contract ‘of service.’ On the facts of the case, the Court placed weight on the way in which the company exercised control over, for example, the technique of interviewing, subjects of the interviews, content of the interviews, questionnaires, forms and other details concerning the performance of the task, and the way in which the woman was not conducting the business on her own account but on behalf of the company. Accordingly, the Court held that the woman was an employee of the company under a ‘contract of service.’
Word Count: 290
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary remains accurate. Market Investigations Ltd v Minister of Social Security [1969] 2 QB 173 continues to be good law and is regularly cited in employment status disputes. The “business on his own account” test articulated by Cooke J remains an important element in determining whether a contract is one of service or for services, and has been applied and endorsed in numerous subsequent cases, including by the Supreme Court in Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41 and by the Court of Appeal in Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith [2017] EWCA Civ 51 (upheld by the Supreme Court [2018] UKSC 29).
Readers should note, however, that employment status law has developed considerably since 1969. Modern courts and tribunals apply a multi-factor approach drawing on a wider body of case law. The statutory framework has also changed substantially: the National Insurance Act 1965 (under which the original question arose) has long been superseded. The relevant legislation now governing employment status for different purposes includes the Employment Rights Act 1996 and associated statutes. Additionally, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5 has significantly shaped the modern approach to employment status, particularly regarding the weight given to contractual documentation versus the reality of the working relationship. The Market Investigations case should therefore be understood as a foundational authority rather than a complete statement of the current law.
