Legal Case Summary
Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v Minister of Pensions [1968] 2 QB 497
Summary: Definition of an employee under a ‘contract of service’.
Facts
A driver contracted with a mixed concrete company for the delivery of concrete. The contract declared him an “independent contractor” and set out wages and expenses. The driver was to purchase his own vehicle, yet with a requirement that the vehicle be painted in company colours. He was to drive the vehicle himself but under compliance with certain company’s rules including, for example, the manner of vehicle repairs and payments.
Issues
The question arose as to whether the driver was an “employed person” under a contract of service with the company for the purposes of the National Insurance Act 1965.
Decision/Outcome
Firstly, the Court held that whether a contract creates a ‘master and servant’ relationship between an employer and employee is determined on the basis of contractual rights and duties, and that the nomenclature used in the contract is irrelevant. Thus, the fact that the contract termed the driver to be an “independent contractor” is not material. Secondly, the Court held that employment under a contract of service exists when:
- a person agrees to a perform a service for a company in exchange for remuneration; and
- a person agrees, expressly or impliedly, to subject himself to the control of the company to a sufficient degree to render the company his “master,” including control over the task’s performance, means, time; and
- the contractual provisions are consistent with ordinary contracts of service.
On the facts, the Court held that the driver had sufficient freedom in the performance of his contractual obligations as he was free to decide the vehicle, his own labour, fuel, and other requirements in the performance of the task. In lieu of these freedoms, he was an independent contractor and not an employee of the company.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2 QB 497 and the three-part test set out by MacKenna J for identifying a contract of service. The summary remains legally sound as a statement of the foundational common law principles.
However, readers should be aware of several important developments. First, the National Insurance Act 1965 (referenced in the article as the relevant statute) has long since been repealed and replaced; the employment status framework now operates across multiple statutory contexts, including the Employment Rights Act 1996 and tax legislation under ITEPA 2003. Second, and more significantly, UK law now recognises a three-tier classification of employment status: employee, worker, and independent contractor. The Ready Mixed Concrete test addresses the employee/independent contractor distinction but does not capture the intermediate ‘worker’ category, which is now of considerable practical importance following cases such as Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41 and the Supreme Court’s decision in Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5. Third, the Government’s 2018 Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices and subsequent consultations have kept employment status reform under active discussion, though no comprehensive statutory reform had been enacted as of the date of this note. Readers should treat this article as an accurate summary of a leading authority on the contract of service test, but should consult updated materials when applying employment status principles to modern statutory or gig-economy contexts.
