(1) In this Act ‘employee’ means an
individual who has entered into or works
under (or, where the employment has
ceased, worked under) a contract of
(2) In this Act ‘contract of
employment’ means a contract of
service or apprenticeship,
whether express or implied, and
(if it is express) whether oral or in
(3) In this Act ‘worker’ (except in the phrases ‘shop
workers’ and ‘betting worker’) means an individual who has
entered into or works under (or, where the employment has
ceased, worked under)- (a) a contract of employment, or (b)
any other contract, whether express or implied and (if it is
express) whether oral or in writing, whereby the individual
undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services
for another party to the contract whose status is not by
virtue of the contract that of a client or customer of any
profession or business undertaking carried on by the
individual; and any reference to a worker’s contract shall be
Difference of ‘contract of service’; as opposed to a contract
Ready Mixed Concrete
3 step test: McKenna J
Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v
Minister for Pensions and National Insurance
 2 QB 497;  1 All ER 433 (QBD)
Issue: Whether Mr. Latimer, a truck driver delivering
concrete for the ready mixed concrete company, was an employee for purposes of social
'Whenever and Wherever’ clause re availability
Couldn’t use truck for any other purpose
Must wear uniform
Company strict control over maintenance of
Ownership of assets
Result-based remuneration. Mr. Latimer
was paid on a mileage basis, per amount of concrete delivered.
System for appointing substitute driver,
administered by owner drivers directly.
Mr. Latimer’s freedom to choose where to buy
Mr. Latimer was an independent
contractor. The contract was a contract
of carriage, rather than of employment.
(1) Is there a ‘wage-work’ bargain?
(2) Has the employee agreed that he will be subject
to the employer’s control to a sufficient degree?
Traditionally determinative: St.
Hillyer v Governors of
St Bartholomew’s Hospital 
Humberstone v Northern
Humberstone v Northern Timber Mills (1949) 79 CLR 389, per Dixon J:
“The question is not hether in practice the work was in fact done
subject to a direction and control exercised by an actual supervision or
whether any actual supervision was possible but whether ultimate authority over
the man in the performance of his work resided in the employer so that he was
subject to the latter's order and directions.”
(3) Are the other provisions of the contracts
consistent with it being a contract of service?
Montreal v Montreal
 1DLR161 (PC), dicta by Lord Wright.
and Harrison Ltd
and Harrison Ltd v Macdonald and
Evans  1 TLR 101, dicta by Denning LJ.
Beloff v Pressdram Ltd  1 All ER 241
Economic Reality - who bears
financial risk? US v Silk