Employment Law UK

View Original

Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and NI

Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and NI [1968] 1 All ER 433 

Facts

The Claimant Mr Latimer drove a concrete mixing lorry for the Respondent. He had to drive the lorry exclusively for the Respondent, he wore the Respondent’s uniform and he agreed to submit to all reasonable orders ‘as if he were an employee’.

Held

The Minister determined that Mr. Latimer was employed under a contract of service, but MacKenna J. concluded that he was operating his own company after an appeal to the High Court. MacKenna J concluded by stating that Mr. Latimer was a "small business man" rather than a servant. Thus it was held that he was an independent contractor and not an employee. One of the critical features in this case was that he was not required to drive the lorry in a personal capacity. He could employ a substitute driver to do so. However, a limited power to appoint substitutes or to delegate tasks is not inconsistent with the existence of a contract of employment.

The main questions to ask are:

  • is the right to delegate fettered in any way?;

  • Is the substitution clause really intended to be used?; and

  • And even if the clause is intended to be used, is it ever in fact used?

The Control Test

The basic criteria for deciding whether someone is an employee or not are set out in the leading case of Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and NI [1968] 1 All ER 433, was said that a contract of service will exist if three conditions are satisfied: 

i) The servant agrees that, in consideration of his wages or some other remuneration, he will provide his own work and skill in the performance of some service for the master.

ii) He agrees, expressly or impliedly, that in the performance of that service he will be subject to the other’s control in a sufficient degree to make that other the master

iii) The other provisions of the contract are consistent with its being a contract of service.

This lack of personal service would also mean that he would not be held to be a worker under the worker definition.