• Robert Spicer


In July 2020 the Supreme Court heard the appeal of Uber BV and others against Aslam and Others. The issues in the appeal were whether Aslam and others came within the definition of “workers” who provided personal services to Uber London Ltd and, if they were defined as “workers”, the extent of their working time. Uber BV, Uber London Ltd and Uber Britannia Ltd are a group of companies which provide private hire vehicle booking services. Services are booked through the companies’ smartphone app, connecting drivers to passengers. Aslam and others are drivers who use that app. They argued that they were “workers” within the scope of the following: · Employment Rights Act 1996 · National Minimum Wage Act 1998 · Working Time Regulations 1998. They claimed that they were entitled to legal protections including the national minimum wage and leave with pay. It was argued on behalf of Uber BV and others that Aslam and others were independent contractors. At first instance, the employment tribunal decided as follows: · Aslam and others were workers. · They were working whenever they had Uber’s app switched on, were in the area where they were authorised to work, and were able and willing to accept passengers. On appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal, these decisions were confirmed. Uber BV and others appealed to the Supreme Court. It is difficult to overestimate the significance of the anticipated decision of the Supreme Court. For employment lawyers, it may be described as one of the most important landmark employment-related cases for many years. For thousands of workers whose self-employed status is unclear, the case is crucial. We have awaited the decision of the Supreme Court since July 2020.

Recent Posts

See All


Gender-critical beliefs In the case of Forstater v CGD Europe, Ms F worked under a consultancy agreement as a researcher and writer with CGD, a think tank. She believes that sex is biologically immuta


England’s coronavirus ban on evictions came to an end on May 32, 2021. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has reported that 400,000 private renters have been served with eviction notices or told to expect


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