Case 2203130/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Johnson v GT Gettaxi (UK) Ltd Heard via CVP (London Central) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2203130/2020
- Decision date
- 11 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davidson Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Johnson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims of disability discrimination, detriment for making disclosures, detriment for trade union activity, and unlawful blacklisting. The respondent argued that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction because he was a black cab driver operating on his own account. The tribunal treated the main issue as whether he was a worker for the purposes of s.230(3)(b) ERA 1996, and also noted the related status questions under the Equality Act 2010 and TULRCA 1992.
Applying Uber BV v Aslam and Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher, the tribunal examined the relationship in reality. It found that the respondent operated a platform linking customers to licensed black cab drivers, that TfL regulated fares and conduct, that drivers were free to log on or off when they wished, could reject or cancel jobs, could ply for hire outside the app, and could use other taxi apps at the same time. Although the driver terms were imposed by the respondent, the tribunal held that the model was materially different from Uber because the drivers remained in business on their own account and the app was only an additional way to increase that business.
The tribunal concluded that the claimant was not a limb (b) worker and was not dependent or subordinate to the respondent. It therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claims and dismissed them. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction after the tribunal found the claimant was not a worker under s.230(3)(b) ERA 1996; the merits were not determined. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction after the tribunal found the claimant was not a worker under s.230(3)(b) ERA 1996; the merits were not determined. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Trade union | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction after the tribunal found the claimant was not a worker under s.230(3)(b) ERA 1996; the merits were not determined. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Mapped from the unlawful blacklisting claim. Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction after the tribunal found the claimant was not a worker under s.230(3)(b) ERA 1996; the merits were not determined. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Uber BV v Aslam
- Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher
- s.230(3)(b) ERA 1996
- s.43K ERA 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.