Uber BV v Aslam

[2021] UKSC 5

Independent editorial summary — not the official judgment. Read the full judgment via the source link.

This page mainly applies to England and Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland may have different rules — check the jurisdiction before relying on this information.

Ratio Decidendi

Uber drivers are 'workers' within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Working Time Regulations, and the National Minimum Wage Act. The written contractual terms stating drivers were self-employed contractors did not reflect the true nature of the relationship. Courts must look at the reality of the working arrangement, not just the written contract.

Facts

Uber drivers Aslam and Farrar brought claims for worker status, seeking entitlement to paid annual leave, rest breaks, and the national minimum wage. Uber argued they were self-employed, contracted with passengers through the Uber app, and Uber was merely a technology platform connecting riders with drivers.

Judgment Summary

The Supreme Court unanimously held the drivers were workers. Lord Leggatt identified five factors: Uber set the fare; Uber imposed contractual terms; drivers' choice to accept rides was constrained by Uber's algorithm; Uber exercised significant control over service delivery; and Uber restricted communication between driver and passenger. Working time began when the app was switched on, not just when carrying passengers.

Key Quotes

"Second, the contractual terms on which drivers perform their services are dictated by Uber. Not only are drivers required to accept Uber’s standard form of written agreement but the terms on which they transport passengers are also imposed by Uber and drivers have no say in them."
— Lord Leggatt at [95](verbatim, verified against the judgment)