• Robert Spicer

Contracts of employment: worker: self-employed cycle courier



Case Addison Lee v Gascoigne UKEAT/0289/17

Facts G was a cycle courier for AL. The ET decided that he was a worker, at least during the time when he had the employer’s app switched on. AL appealed to the EAT on the following grounds:

  • The ET had been wrong to decide that there was sufficient mutuality of obligations establish a contract

  • The ET had been wrong to apply a multi-factorial test to decide that other requirements of worker status were satisfied.

Decision 1. The appeal was dismissed.

  1. The ET’s findings supported its conclusion that G was a worker when logged on.

  2. The lack of a sanction did not provide a material distinction.

  3. The ET’s findings of established practice, and the expectations of the parties, had established mutuality of obligation.

  4. The written documentation did not reflect the reality of the relationship and it was possible to look behind it.

  5. The reality was that when the app was switched on, there was an expectation that G would take any job offered.

Recent Posts

See All


DAMAGES Lost years of earnings Case Head v Culver Heating Co Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 34 Facts H was the managing director of EMSL, his own heating and ventilation company. He was negligently exposed to as

More recent employment cases

RACE DISCRIMINATION Harassment Stale training Case Allay (UK) Ltd v Gehlen UKEAT/0031/20/AT Facts G, a man of Indian origin, was employed by A in October 2016. In August 2017 he told his line manager