In person For the First v Respondent — 2021

This judgment determined preliminary issues only. The Tribunal found that the Claimant was an employee of the First Respondent (Mr R. Tidman) within the meaning of section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and section 83(4) of the Equality Act 2010, from July 2014 to 14 March 2020. The Tribunal found that the Claimant was a worker of the Second Respondent (United Taxis Limited) within the meaning of section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, from 1 March 2009 to 14 March 2020, in respect of work driving private hire vehicles for the Second Respondent.

In reaching its conclusion on worker status as against the Second Respondent, the Tribunal applied the approach set out in Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5. The Tribunal was satisfied that an implied contract existed between the Claimant and the Second Respondent, regulated by the Second Respondent's Driver's Training Manual and 'byelaws', and that the Second Respondent exercised significant control over how the Claimant delivered driving services (including via the iCabbi system, dress code, signage, fare collection for card and account work, complaints handling and disciplinary procedures). The Tribunal rejected the Second Respondent's contention that no contractual relationship existed.

The substantive claims of unfair dismissal, direct age discrimination, notice pay, holiday pay, unauthorised deductions, national minimum wage, and absence of written statements were not adjudicated at this hearing. The case was directed to be listed for a further preliminary hearing by telephone to identify remaining issues and case management directions in preparation for a final hearing.