Search Results for: Working Time Regulations 1998 36(1)

Click the case name for better results:

Uber Bv v Aslam and Others (Jurisdictional Points – Worker, Employee or Neither : Working Time Regulations): EAT 10 Nov 2017

Uber drivers are workers JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Worker, employee or neither WORKING TIME REGULATIONS – Worker ‘Worker status’ – section 230(3)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996 (‘ERA’), regulation 36(1) Working Time Regulations 1998 (‘WTR’) and section 54(3) National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (‘NMWA’). ‘Working time’ – regulation 2(1) WTR The Claimants were current or former Uber … Continue reading Uber Bv v Aslam and Others (Jurisdictional Points – Worker, Employee or Neither : Working Time Regulations): EAT 10 Nov 2017

Uber Bv and Others v Aslam and Others: CA 19 Dec 2018

Uber drivers are workers The claimant Uber drivers sought the status of workers, allowing them to claim the associated statutory employment benefits. The company now appealed from a finding that they were workers. Held: The appeal failed (Underhill LJ dissenting) The drivers accepted the control of tee Uber app: ‘Even if drivers are not obliged … Continue reading Uber Bv and Others v Aslam and Others: CA 19 Dec 2018

Uber Bv and Others v Aslam and Others: SC 19 Feb 2021

Smartphone App Contractors did so as Workers The court was asked whether the employment tribunal was entitled to find that drivers whose work was arranged through Uber’s smartphone application work for Uber under workers’ contracts and so qualify for the national minimum wage, paid annual leave and other workers’ rights; or whether, as Uber contended, … Continue reading Uber Bv and Others v Aslam and Others: SC 19 Feb 2021

Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and Others: SC 27 Jul 2011

Car Cleaning nil-hours Contractors were Workers The company contracted with the claimants to work cleaning cars. The company appealed against a finding that contrary to the explicit provisions of the contracts, they were workers within the Regulations and entitled to holiday pay and associated benefits. The contracts were ‘nil hours’ contracts neither requiring nor entitling … Continue reading Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and Others: SC 27 Jul 2011

Revenue and Customs v Secret Hotels2 Ltd: SC 5 Mar 2014

The Court was asked as to: ‘the liability for Value Added Tax of a company which markets and arranges holiday accommodation through an on-line website. The outcome turns on the appropriate characterisation of the relationship between the company, the operators of the hotels, and the holiday-makers or their travel agents (which is an English law … Continue reading Revenue and Customs v Secret Hotels2 Ltd: SC 5 Mar 2014