United Taxis Limited v R Comolly & Anor

A contractual commitment to comply with an operator’s rules as a condition of access to work does not, without necessity, imply a direct contract for personal services with that operator. It may instead be collateral to a subcontracting arrangement through another party.

A person cannot simultaneously be an employee or worker of two separate employers for the same work, at the same time. In distinguishing employee from limb (b) worker status, a tribunal must assess the nature, extent and source of control, and the other contractual terms. A dependent driver who is not carrying on an independent business may be a worker even though the control is insufficient for employee status.

Mr Comolly drove private-hire passengers booked through United Taxis’ dispatch system. He drove a taxi owned by Mr Tidman, a shareholder in United Taxis, and received half of the fares. The Employment Tribunal found that Mr Comolly was an employee of Mr Tidman and a worker of United Taxis.

United Taxis and Mr Tidman each appealed. The central issues were whether a direct worker contract with United Taxis could be implied, whether dual status in respect of the same work was legally possible, and whether Mr Comolly was an employee, worker, or independent contractor in relation to Mr Tidman.

1. Appeals allowed. The tribunal was entitled to find that passengers contracted solely with United Taxis, and that Mr Tidman engaged and paid Mr Comolly to drive those passengers. The arrangement was not necessarily, or wholly, a hire of Mr Tidman’s taxi.

2. The tribunal erred in implying a worker contract between Mr Comolly and United Taxis. Registration, payment of a registration fee, and agreement to observe United Taxis’ manual and byelaws could support a collateral commitment governing access to work. They did not make it necessary to imply a contract under which Mr Comolly undertook personally to drive passengers for United Taxis. The factual findings instead showed that he accessed the work as a subcontractor engaged by a shareholder.

3. The tribunal also erred by treating Mr Comolly as both Mr Tidman’s employee and United Taxis’ worker in respect of the same driving work at the same time. The authorities identify serious difficulties with parallel employment relationships of that kind. Once a contractual relationship with Mr Tidman had been found, no implication of a second worker relationship was necessary to secure statutory protection.

4. The finding that Mr Comolly was Mr Tidman’s employee was flawed. The tribunal did not adequately distinguish control autonomously exercised by Mr Tidman, such as the availability of his taxi, from restrictions imposed by United Taxis. It also did not explain why the other contractual terms supported employee rather than worker status.

5. On the findings, the only permissible conclusion was that Mr Comolly was not in business on his own account. He was required to perform personally, had no taxi of his own, could not obtain work through other taxi applications or privately from United Taxis’ passengers, and was economically dependent on the available work. The control was insufficient for employee status but sufficient, with the mutual obligations during each period when the taxi was available, for worker status. A finding was substituted that he was a worker of Mr Tidman, and an employee for Equality Act 2010 purposes, while driving Mr Tidman’s taxi.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: allowed the appeals from the Employment Tribunal and substituted status findings.

• Employment Tribunal: held that Mr Comolly was an employee of Mr Tidman under section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and a worker of United Taxis under section 230(3)(b), from July 2014 to 14 March 2020.