From Law wiki, the wiki for law research

[1968] 2 QB 497. This case concerned the determination of whether an employee had a 'contract of service' or a 'contract for services' with the employer. Althoughvicarious liability was not at issue in this case, it is relevant to vicarious liability cases, because for an employer to be held liable for the torts of his employees, these employees must genuinely be employees, and not independent contractors. If there is a 'contract of service', then it is more likely that vicarious liability will be established.

In Ready-mixed Concrete the claimant employed a lorry driver to take materials and machinery to its customer's sites. The driver was required by the contract to follow the instructions of the employer, to wear the employer's uniform, to paint the lorry in the employer's colours, and to make the lorry available exclusively for the use of the employer. In most circumstances the driver's contract would almost certainly have amounted to a 'contract of service', making the driver a true employee. In this case, however, the driver paid for the hire-purchase of the lorry, and its maintenance. Because the driver had assumed at least part of the economic risk under the contract, he could not properly be said to have a 'contract of service', and hence was not an employee.