Mr Ali Sayed v Skyline Taxi and Private Hire Limited — 2020

Mr Ali Sayed brought a claim of unfair dismissal arising from his work with Skyline Taxi and Private Hire Limited. The tribunal heard the case remotely in August and October 2020 and dealt only with employee status under section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The respondent said the arrangement was business-to-business and that the claimant was a self-employed private hire driver.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant personally performed the work, but found that the relationship lacked mutuality of obligation. It found that the claimant was under no obligation to log on to the iCabbi app, accept work, or work any set hours, and that the respondent was under no obligation to provide him with work. The evidence showed that he chose when and where to work, could log on and off as he wished, and could reject bookings.

On control, the tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that the claimant was not subject to the respondent's rules beyond the regulatory requirements imposed by the licensing authority. It found that the 30-minute time-out after a rejected job applied only where a driver accepted a booking and then rejected it, and was intended to discourage that conduct. The tribunal also noted that the claimant provided his own vehicle, there was no uniform, and the claimant's tax returns treated him as self-employed and claimed business expenses and capital allowances.

The tribunal therefore held that the claimant was not an employee of the respondent and dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint for want of jurisdiction. In reaching that conclusion it referred to section 230(1) ERA 1996, Ready Mixed Concrete, and Autoclenz. It also noted that the claimant had produced a witness statement from Mr Noyan, but gave it no weight because he did not attend for cross-examination.