C Johnson v GT Gettaxi (UK) Ltd

The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appellant's challenge to an Employment Tribunal decision that a licensed Hackney carriage driver who used the respondent's app was not a worker. The EAT held that the Employment Tribunal had correctly applied the statutory test in section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, correctly directed itself by reference to authorities such as Uber and Autoclenz, and made permissible factual findings that the drivers remained in business on their own account. Key factors were the regulatory regime for black cabs (including metered fares and obligations to accept fares), the drivers' freedom to ply for hire and to use other apps, the absence of effective sanctions for rejecting app work, and that use of the app was an adjunct to an independent business. The EAT found no legal error or perversity in the tribunal's assessment of control, payment arrangements or other factors and therefore dismissed the appeal.

Background and parties: The respondent operates a mobile application allowing the public to order licensed black cabs. The appellant is a licensed Hackney carriage driver who used the app intermittently between 2015 and 2017 and sought to rejoin in 2020 but was refused. He alleged, among other matters, that he was a worker for the respondent and that the tribunal therefore had jurisdiction to hear his claims.

Nature of the application: Appeal from an Employment Tribunal (London Central, Employment Judge Davidson, judgment 18 February 2021 sent 11 March 2021) which had held the claimant was not a worker. The appellant challenged the tribunal's findings and legal approach, arguing the relationship was like that in Uber and that the tribunal had misapplied the key factors relevant to worker status.

Issues framed:

• Whether, applying section 230(3)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996 and the authorities (notably Uber and Autoclenz), the claimant was a limb (b) worker or carried on a profession or business on his own account.
• Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law or made perverse factual findings in relation to control, setting of fares, acceptance and cancellation policies, monitoring and sanctions, communications, and the practical reality of the contractual relationship.

Court's reasoning: The EAT reviewed the tribunal's factual findings on the regulatory constraints imposed by Transport for London, the predominance of metered fares, the respondent's commission and payment handling, and the practical freedom of drivers to ply for hire, use other apps and decide routes. The tribunal had applied the Uber factors and related authorities, and expressly considered terms imposed by the respondent but weighed them against distinguishing features (TfL regulation, ability to ply for hire, lack of effective app-imposed sanctions and limited share of the claimant's earnings derived from the app). The EAT emphasised the well-established appellate restraint in overturning factual findings and concluded the Employment Tribunal's decision was a reasonable, permissible evaluation of the evidence and law. The EAT therefore found no misdirection in law and no perversity in the tribunal's conclusions.

Wider context: The judgment explains the correct approach to worker status disputes: focus on the statutory wording in section 230 ERA, a realistic assessment of the true nature of the agreement (as guided by Autoclenz and Uber), and caution against appellate interference with factual evaluations where the tribunal has applied the correct legal principles.

The appeal is dismissed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the Employment Tribunal had correctly applied section 230 ERA and relevant authorities, and permissibly found that the claimant was in business on his own account as a Hackney carriage driver who used the app as an adjunct to his independent business; there was no error of law or perverse factual finding warranting interference.

Appeal from the Employment Tribunal, London Central (Employment Judge Davidson) whose judgment was handed down 18 February 2021 (sent 11 March 2021). This appeal was decided by the Employment Appeal Tribunal as reported at [2024] EAT 162.