Case 2202551/2015 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Farrar v Uber London Ltd & another — 2023
- Case reference
- 2202551/2015
- Decision date
- 26 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Farrar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 20 June 2023, at a preliminary hearing for case management and by consent, Employment Judge A M Snelson determined that Uber London Limited had breached Regulations 13, 13A, 14(2) and 16 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The tribunal found that Uber failed to provide a facility for Mr J Farrar to exercise his right to paid annual leave, refused him when he attempted to exercise that right, and failed to make a payment on termination for accrued but untaken annual leave.
The tribunal also found that Uber London Limited had made an unlawful deduction from wages contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 by failing to pay the national minimum wage in one or more pay reference periods. It ordered Uber London Limited to pay Mr Farrar £22,960.85 for losses arising from the unpaid national minimum wage and unpaid holiday pay. The claims against the remaining respondent were dismissed because that respondent was not Mr Farrar's employer.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | Successful against Uber London Limited. The order does not split the £22,960.85 between this claim and the wages claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Successful against Uber London Limited. The order does not split the £22,960.85 between this claim and the working-time claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £22,961
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Regulations 13, 13A, 14(2) and 16 of the Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.