Mr Z Ali v Leeds Taxi Owners Ltd HELD by CVP — 2021

At a preliminary hearing, the tribunal considered whether Mr Z Ali was a worker under s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996 and regulation 2 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 from September 2018 onwards, and whether he was an employee for Equality Act 2010 purposes under ss.83 and 212. Mr Ali was a longstanding hackney carriage licence holder who joined Leeds Taxi Owners Ltd as a member, initially on a logo-only basis, later on a 10% basis for cash and card work, and from about September 2018 on a £60 monthly membership fee plus 10% arrangement that gave access to account work.

The tribunal preferred the reality of the working arrangements over some written induction documents. It found that drivers could sign in to the PDA or app, choose whether to do system work, press "book off" when unavailable, and press "flag down" when doing street hires. If a signed-in driver rejected an allocated job, the only sanction was a 10-minute "sin-bin"; the tribunal accepted evidence that there was no broader disciplinary process, no fines in practice, and no escalating system of penalties. It also noted that Mr Ali provided his own vehicle, was responsible for its upkeep and compliance with hackney carriage byelaws, and had self-employed accounts showing substantial income from sources other than the respondent.

Applying Autoclenz, Uber, Pimlico Plumbers, Byrne Bros, Bates van Winkelhof and Windle, the tribunal held that Mr Ali was fundamentally running his own self-employed taxi business and was not in a relationship of subordination and dependence with the respondent. It treated the dress code requirement and Mr Ali's temporary removal from the app as factors pointing towards some control, but not enough to outweigh the wider independence of the arrangement. The judgment stated that it was not resolving the discrimination complaint itself, and no remedy was awarded.