Case 1400049/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Hedayatullah v Uber Brittania Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1400049/2022
- Decision date
- 9 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Scott Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Hedayatullah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant's application to amend his grounds to include indirect discrimination was refused. On the preliminary issues, the tribunal found that Mr Hedayatullah was not an employee of Uber Brittania Ltd within s230(1) or (2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, but was a worker within s230(3), applying Uber B.V. & Others v Aslam & Others [2021] UKSC 5.
Because he was not an employee, the tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal claim under s94 ERA 1996. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore struck out, and the judgment records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant's application to amend his grounds to include indirect discrimination was refused. The tribunal found he was a worker under s230(3) ERA 1996 but not an employee within s230(1) or (2) ERA 1996, so it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim under s94 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s230(1) ERA 1996
- s230(2) ERA 1996
- s230(3) ERA 1996
- s94 ERA 1996
- Uber B.V. & Others v Aslam & Others [2021] UKSC 5
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.