Mingeley v Pennock and Another (T/A Amber Cars): CA 9 Feb 2004

The claimant taxi driver sought to assert race discrimination. The respondent argued that he had not been an employee, but an independent contractor. The Claimant owned his own vehicle and paid the respondents minicab operators pounds 75 per week for a radio and access to their company system, which allocated calls from customers to a fleet of drivers. He was required to wear a uniform and prohibited from working for any other operator, but was not required to work, nor to accept any fare allocated to him by the system. All the fare money was his to keep.
Held: The driver was not required by the contract to carry out the driving personally. He would pay a sum each week to be included on the respondent’s radio and computer system for allocating work. The test was whether the dominant purpose of the agreement would require him to do the work personally. It did not, and the tribunal did not have jurisdiction. The claimant was not ’employed’ by the operator within the meaning of section 78.


Buxton, Maurice Kay LJJ, Sir Martin Nourse


Times 04-Mar-2004, [2004] EWCA Civ 328, Gazette 18-Mar-2004, [2004] ICR 727, [2004] IRLR 373




Race Relations Act 1976 78(1)


England and Wales


Appeal fromMingeley v Pennock and Ivory T/A Amber Cars EAT 1-May-2003
EAT Race Discrimination – Prospective employees . .
CitedMirror Group Newspapers v Gunning CA 1985
The claimant sought to have transferred to her, her father’s agency for the wholesale distribution of Sunday newspapers. The claimant alleging sex discrimination after being refused. The company said that she was not an employee within the 1975 Act. . .
CitedKelly v Northern Ireland Housing Executive; Loughran v Northern Ireland Housing Executive HL 29-Jul-1998
Provisions against discrimination on religious grounds in Northern Ireland, could apply to appointment of a firm to a panel of experts, where one person was designated to carry out that work. ‘it is essential, for there to be ’employment,’ that the . .

Cited by:

CitedPercy v Church of Scotland Board of National Mission HL 15-Dec-2005
The claimant appealed after her claim for sex discrimination had failed. She had been dismissed from her position an associate minister of the church. The court had found that it had no jurisdiction, saying that her appointment was not an . .
CitedJivraj v Hashwani SC 27-Jul-2011
The parties had a joint venture agreement which provided that any dispute was to be referred to an arbitrator from the Ismaili community. The claimant said that this method of appointment became void as a discriminatory provision under the 2003 . .
CitedUber 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 . .
CitedUber 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 09 August 2022; Ref: scu.194278