Case 2201540/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Sardar v Uber London Limited and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 2201540/2022
- Decision date
- 15 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr S Sardar
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented a claim for notice pay and sought reactivation by Uber, alleging that he had worked as a driver from 31 May 2016 until 15 November 2021 and was entitled at common law to reasonable notice. He claimed £5,000 representing five weeks’ pay. The respondents contended that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine the claim.
The tribunal determined the jurisdiction issue on legal argument alone. It held that its contractual jurisdiction is purely statutory and that, under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994, contractual claims may be brought only by employees engaged under contracts of service. The claimant’s representative did not argue that he was an employee, but maintained that he was a worker.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that it had no jurisdiction to consider the breach of contract complaint and dismissed the proceedings. The judge also stated that the judgment concerned only the tribunal’s jurisdiction and did not address whether any claim might be available to the claimant in the courts.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal dismissed the claim for want of jurisdiction, holding that its contractual jurisdiction under the 1994 Order extends only to employees, not to a claimant advancing worker status. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994
- ETA 1996 s3(2)
- ETA 1996 s42(1)
- ERA 1996 s230(1)
- ERA 1996 s230(3)(b)
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.