By arch.portfolio member Kareena Prescott.
In Johnson v Transopco UK Ltd, the EAT has upheld an employment tribunal’s decision that a taxi driver working through the Mytaxi app was not a ‘worker’ of the app operator. Even though the driver had an obligation of personal service, the operator was a ‘client or customer’ of the driver’s business for the purposes of S.230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal was allowed to rely on its findings that the driver could provide his services as infrequently or as often as he wanted, could dictate the timing of those services, and was not subject to control by the operator in the way in which those services were undertaken. the Tribunal was also entitled to take into account the small proportion of work that the driver did through the app compared to the amount he did on his own account.
It’s fair to say that the outcome of this case came as a bit of surprise especially given the decisions in Uber and Deliveroo. This is a clear reminder that the determination of employment (and worker) status is very much dependent on each specific set of facts.
If your business engages the services of independent contractors, Arch Law can advise and guide your business through this complex area of law. For more information on how we can help contact me at kareena.prescott@arch.law.
