Syed Asim Raza Gillani & Ors v Veezu Limited & Ors

A case-management order for particulars about drivers’ work for other businesses must be proportionate to the legitimate case-management benefit. Although the incidence and frequency of using multiple work apps may be relevant to worker status, relevance alone does not justify an onerous and unlimited order requiring every claimant to obtain, collate and provide detailed information from third parties.

Where the tribunal’s proportionality assessment rests on a material error about the intended use or timing of the information, the order falls outside the generous ambit of reasonable case-management discretion. Under Employment Tribunals Act 1996, section 35(1), the EAT may itself substitute a proportionate case-management order where the issue is evaluative rather than a substantive fact-finding decision and remission would cause avoidable cost and delay.

509 private-hire drivers brought claims for holiday pay, national minimum wage and written statements of particulars. They contended that they were workers or agency workers of the respondent transport companies. A preliminary hearing in 2026 was to determine worker status and relevant working periods for eight lead claimants selected from a pool of 12.

The employment judge ordered every claimant to give dates and times when they used other driving, delivery or courier apps, or made themselves available to other businesses. The claimants appealed, challenging the order’s scope, burden, proportionality and reasoning. The central questions were whether that order was lawful and, if not, whether the EAT could substitute a revised case-management order rather than remit the issue.

1. Appeal allowed. Multi-apping was capable of being relevant to worker status and to the times when a driver might be a worker. An order for information about it could therefore be justified. However, relevance was only the starting point. The burden of compliance had to be proportionate to the case-management benefit and the overriding objective.

2. The employment judge’s proportionality assessment was vitiated. His original reasons showed that he intended the information to assist the respondents in selecting lead claimants. The timetable meant that the information would not be available at that stage. His later characterisation of the order as serving only a broader, “macro” purpose was an unsatisfactory reconstruction of the original reasoning. The balance had therefore been struck on a false premise.

3. The order was also disproportionate on its terms. It imposed an absolute, unlimited obligation on all claimants to obtain and analyse documented information, potentially from unwilling third parties, and to address consequential compliance disputes. A more measured order could obtain useful information without imposing that burden on the whole cohort.

4. Under Employment Tribunals Act 1996, section 35(1)(a), the EAT had power to exercise the tribunal’s case-management power. The restrictions discussed in Jafri did not bind the EAT to remit an evaluative case-management decision which did not require substantive fact-finding. Remission would cause further cost and delay, risk the listed preliminary hearing, and would ordinarily return the matter to a judge whom the EAT considered parti pris on the appeal issues.

5. The contested order was set aside and replaced. The 12 potential lead claimants must provide the requested particulars in full. A random sample of 125 claimants must provide a personally signed, verified questionnaire giving their best estimate of multi-apping and availability to other businesses. Both requirements are limited to the period beginning two years before the claim. The parties were to agree a timetable and consequential directions, with unresolved matters to be determined on the papers.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: allowed the claimants’ appeal from Employment Judge Jenkins’s case-management order and substituted a narrower order: [2025] EAT 97.
• Employment Tribunal: Employment Judge Jenkins ordered all claimants to provide particulars of multi-apping and availability to other businesses. The EAT set that order aside.