top of page
  • Writer's pictureRobert 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.


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page