Case 2300419/2017 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 2300419/2017
- Decision date
- 9 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Siddall
- Venue
- Croydon
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this preliminary hearing the tribunal dealt with the claimant's employment status and with claims that had been withdrawn. By consent, the claimant was found to be a worker for the purposes of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. The claimant also argued that he was an employee. The tribunal heard evidence from Mr Leslie Chapman, a director of the respondent, and from the claimant.
The tribunal found that the Driver Agreement broadly reflected the practical arrangements between the parties. It accepted that the claimant had to provide personal service because there was no contractual right of substitution and any informal swapping of jobs still required re-allocation through the operator. It also found a substantial degree of control: drivers had to follow the handbook, wear prescribed clothing for some work, display the respondent's signage, notify absences, and were subject to a 20-minute timeout if they refused a job.
In assessing status, the tribunal referred to Ready Mix Concrete Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance and Quashie v Stringfellow Restaurants Ltd, and considered mutuality of obligation, economic risk and whether the claimant was in business on his own account. It accepted that the claimant bore some risk through fuel, maintenance and unpaid fares, and could log on and off the app, but concluded that the majority of the factors pointed to a relationship consistent with a contract of service. It therefore found that the claimant was an employee, although the finding had limited practical application because the respondent had already conceded worker status.
The tribunal recorded that the unfair dismissal claims under section 94(1) and section 104A ERA 1996, and the detriment claim for making a protected disclosure under section 47B ERA 1996, were dismissed upon withdrawal. It also stated that a further hearing would be listed to determine the remaining worker-based claims, including detriment, notice pay, holiday pay and arrears of national minimum wage.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim under section 94(1) ERA 1996; dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim under section 104A ERA 1996; dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment claim for making a protected disclosure under section 47B ERA 1996; dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Ready Mix Concrete Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] I AER 43
- Quashie v Stringfellow Restaurants Ltd [2013] IRLR 99
- mutuality of obligation
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.
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.