Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v Minister of Pensions [1968] 2 QB 497

Facts

  • A driver entered into a contractual agreement with Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd to deliver concrete.
  • The contract expressly described the driver as an “independent contractor.”
  • The arrangement required the driver to purchase and finance their own vehicle, which had to be painted in company colors and maintained per company regulations.
  • The driver was paid according to terms set in the written contract and had to follow operational procedures specified by the company.
  • The driver was personally obliged to drive the vehicle and fulfill delivery duties, remaining responsible for vehicle maintenance and associated expenses.
  • The status of the driver—whether employee or independent contractor—became the central issue when determining the company’s liability for National Insurance contributions under the National Insurance Act 1965.

Issues

  1. Whether the contractual relationship between the company and the driver constituted a contract of service (employment), despite being labelled as one of independent contracting.
  2. Whether the degree of control exercised by the company over the driver’s activities was sufficient to establish an employer-employee relationship.
  3. Whether all contractual terms and conditions were consistent with a contract of service as opposed to a contract for services.

Decision

  • The court established a tripartite test for identifying a contract of service: (1) service performed in exchange for remuneration; (2) sufficient control by the alleged employer; (3) contract terms consistent with employment.
  • It found that, although the company imposed certain controls (vehicle appearance, repair obligations), the driver retained substantial autonomy, including vehicle ownership, maintenance, and working methods.
  • The contractual terms did not establish the requisite degree of control by the company; the driver’s significant independence weighed against employment status.
  • The court concluded that the driver was not an employee under a contract of service but operated as an independent contractor.
  • The company was not liable for National Insurance contributions in respect of the driver.

Legal Principles

  • The determination of employment status depends on substance, not merely the labels used by parties in a contract.
  • The “control test”—considering not just what work is done but how, when, and by whom—remains central but is not the sole determinant.
  • Economic realities, including ownership of equipment, financial risk, and opportunity for profit or loss, are relevant to assessing the relationship.
  • All contractual provisions must collectively align with a contract of service to establish employee status.
  • Legal analysis must evaluate the true nature of the parties’ rights and obligations rather than superficial contractual statements.

Conclusion

Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v Minister of Pensions confirmed that the classification of workers turns on the actual terms and practical arrangements of the working relationship, not on contractual labels. By articulating the tripartite test and recognizing the limits of the control test, the decision has become a guiding authority on determining employment versus independent contractor status for statutory and labor law purposes.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal