Talk:Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance

Topic: The importance of this article, and the need not to undermine that importance (baldly stating the reduced importance of the 'control test' clearly did this).

It is very surprising that this article is rated as of low importance, as this case lays the foundation for any decision about employment status in the United Kingdom. Employment status is increasingly important due to the statutory provisions that confer benefits on those who have the status of employee, while denying them to independent contractors. The complexity introduced by the intermediate status of 'worker' is ignored, for simplicity sake. The points made by J MacKenna in the Ready Mixed Concrete case were summarised by the UK House of Lords in Carmichael v National Power PLC [2000], and more recently in Autoclenz v. Belcher [2011] UK Supreme Court. Nevertheless, to understand the comprehensive statement of the law that J MacKenna attempted, it is best to look at the Ready Mixed Concrete case itself. Also, the final sentence in this wiki article, about the changing significance of the control test can not be justified as a bald statement, on its own. If the person who wrote that sentence is clear that the article needs that information to be included, they would have to make a more comprehensive and authoritative statement (IMHO).

I would like to add my thanks to the person who added the link to the Pdf of the published judgement in this case, as I have not before had access to the material in its original form.

92.237.13.56 (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a UK case, but the picture of the concrete lorry shows a truck from the USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.13.56 (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use the word "labour" as it is used in the article i n the UK.

We generally say "UK employment law". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.58.19 (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]