Case 2304747/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Oliver v Uber London Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2304747/2022
- Decision date
- 1 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Keogh Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Oliver
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented a claim for unfair dismissal only. The respondent contended that he was a worker rather than an employee, and the tribunal considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear the claim on that basis.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant ultimately accepted he was a worker and not an employee. Employment Judge Keogh held that, although workers have various statutory rights, the right to bring an unfair dismissal claim under section 94(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is limited to employees as defined by section 230(1). The claim was therefore struck out for want of jurisdiction.
After the oral decision, the claimant asked whether the case could be considered as a breach of contract claim. The tribunal did not determine any such claim, noting there had been no application to amend and that, in any event, such an application would have been very substantially out of time.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim was struck out because the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction: the claimant accepted he was a worker rather than an employee, and unfair dismissal protection under s.94(1) ERA 1996 applies only to employees. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.94(1) ERA 1996
- s.111 ERA 1996
- s.230 ERA 1996
- Uber BV & others v Aslam & others [2010] UKSC 5
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.