EAT The claimant worked as a private hire car driver for the respondent company which operated a taxi service based at Gatwick Airport. The claimant owned and was responsible for his own vehicle. He paid his own income tax and national insurance. He was required to use set routes and charge set fares. He collected fares from customers, paying a commission to the respondent. He had complete flexibility over when he worked: he was not obliged to accept work and the respondent was not obliged to offer him work. Drivers were never required to attend work. The only issue (since the claim was one of unfair dismissal) was whether he was an employee, not whether he was providing services as a limb (b) worker.
Held: On these facts the ET had been entitled to find that there was no contract of employment. The absence of any obligation to work other than when he chose was inconsistent with the conclusion that there was any contract of employment which subsisted when the claimant was not working.
EAT Langstaff J observed, obiter: ‘If it had been material to our decision, we would have been inclined to find that . . , on the findings of fact that the tribunal made, the contract went no further than to amount to a licence by Checkers to permit the claimant to offer himself as a private hire taxi driver to individual passengers on terms dictated by the administrative convenience of Checkers and BAA.’
UKEAT/0208/05,  UKEAT 0208 – 05 – 1612
England and Wales
Cited – Yuen v The Royal Hong Kong Golf Club PC 28-Jul-1997
(Hong Kong) The applicant was dismissed as a golf caddie after nine years. The Club denied that he had ever been an employee. He was issued by the club with a number, a uniform and a locker. Caddying work was allocated to available caddies in strict . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Uber Bv and Others v Aslam and Others SC 19-Feb-2021
Smartphone App Contractors were 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 . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 February 2021; Ref: scu.238273