Stuart Delivery Ltd v Augustine

(1) Overall disposition: The appeals are dismissed. The Employment Tribunal did not err in law in its conclusions and its factual findings were not perverse. (see paras [62]; [70]). (2) Worker status on slots: The Tribunal correctly applied s.230(3)(b) ERA 1996 and relevant authorities. It accepted that there was no unfettered right of substitution. The Release Notification system, which allowed a courier to re‑release a slot into a pool, did not amount in practice to a right to provide a substitute chosen by the courier. The absence of control over who (if anyone) accepted a released slot meant the courier remained under a real obligation to perform personally. The Tribunal properly held that this arrangement did not displace limb (b) worker status. (see paras [31]–[34]; [62]). (3) Application of Pimlico Plumbers: The Tribunal correctly identified and applied the five illustrative substitution categories from Pimlico Plumbers. Although the Tribunal misidentified to whom the "absolute discretion" language referred, that error was immaterial because, on the facts as found, the operator effectively had absolute control over substitution through the pool. Pimlico Plumbers was therefore applied and followed. (see paras [31]; [40]–[41]; [62]). (4) In business on own account: The Tribunal's detailed factual findings (integration in the platform, controls, guaranteed hourly pay, absence of business risk) supported the conclusion that the courier was not in business on his own account while on slots. The Employment Appeal Tribunal found no flaw in the Tribunal's application of Jivraj and related authorities. (see paras [36]; [38]; [41]–[43]; [58]). (5) Employee/umbrella contract argument: The Tribunal's brief rejection of a global/umbrella employment contract was adequate. Any question whether each slot separately created an employment contract was academic on these facts. No remittal was required. (see paras [53]–[56]). (6) Perversity challenge: The Tribunal's findings about hours and a small number of ad hoc deliveries were supported by the respondent's records. The high test for perversity was not met. The respondent conceded a minor numerical correction could be made, but this did not undermine the conclusion. (see paras [64]–[69]). (7) Orders: The appeals and cross‑appeal are dismissed. (see para [70]).