Having your cake & EATing it: Ian Smith provides some food for thought
- Future implications of the Supreme Court’s Uber judgment.
- Broad issues of policy that arise when two protected characteristics clash.
- Disclosure and inspection—the test to be applied.
- Procedure at the hearing—admissibility of similar fact evidence.
The big news in recent weeks has, of course, been the decision of the Supreme Court in Uber BV and others v Aslam and others [2021] UKSC 5, [2021] All ER (D) 89 (Feb), upholding the Court of Appeal’s finding of worker status for gig economy Uber drivers, and also holding that they have that status (for the purposes of the national minimum wage, working time holiday entitlements and whistleblowing claims) for the whole time that their booking app is on. The case is dealt with elsewhere—specifically in Charles Pigott’s NLJ update next week—but one comment may be made here. The decision has been widely reported in the press with speculation not just as to its
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
