Mr Pa Edrissa Manjang v Uber Eats UK Limited and 2 others — 2022

This was a preliminary hearing dealing with procedural applications rather than final liability or remedy. The tribunal dismissed the respondents' application to strike out the claims or require a deposit order, held that Uber London Ltd should remain a respondent, and allowed the claimant's application to amend his pleadings.

The judge held that the case required a fact-sensitive assessment with full disclosure. Although the respondents relied on safety-lens data and their explanation that the claimant's deactivation was triggered by unusual account activity rather than an automated facial-recognition failure, the tribunal found that the contemporaneous material did not provide complete clarity about what had happened, especially given the inconsistency between the reasons given to the claimant at the time and the later pleaded explanation.

In allowing the amendment, the tribunal accepted that the proposed changes were largely a reformulation or expansion of the existing discrimination case in light of information emerging through the litigation, including the respondents' account of human-review processes. The judge considered the proceedings to be at an early stage and found it fair and proportionate to permit the claimant to advance his case on those alternative bases.