Claimant v ABC Taxis Chester Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Claimants 1 and 2 found to be workers, not employees. Unfair dismissal claims dismissed as they can only be brought by employees under ERA 1996.
Claimants 1 and 2 found to be workers from 2 May 2022. Constructive dismissal claims not determined at this preliminary stage as they depend on employee status.
Claimants 1 and 2 found to be workers, not employees. Redundancy payment claims dismissed as they can only be brought by employees under ERA 1996.
Claimants 1 and 2 found to be workers. Breach of contract claims to be considered at a further preliminary hearing to determine which claims can proceed based on worker status.
Claimants 1 and 2 found to be workers from 2 May 2022. Holiday pay claims to be considered at a further preliminary hearing. Claimants 3, 4, and 5 found to be self-employed, so their holiday pay claims are dismissed.
Claimants 1 and 2 found to be workers from 2 May 2022. Unlawful deduction claims to be considered at a further preliminary hearing. Claimants 3, 4, and 5 found to be self-employed, so their claims are dismissed.
Claimants 3, 4, and 5 found to be self-employed at all material times. All claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as they were not employees or workers.
Facts
Five claimants worked for a taxi business operating in Chester. The first two claimants (Barron and Hood) worked as dispatchers/operators. The remaining three (Nixon and the Taylors) were taxi drivers. The business operated under complex corporate arrangements involving ABC Taxis Chester Ltd (a dormant company) and ABC Taxis NW Ltd (the active operator). The first claimant initially worked as a de facto partner from July 2020 before being placed on the payroll in May 2022. The drivers argued they were workers, but the respondents contended all claimants were self-employed.
Decision
The tribunal found claimants 1 and 2 (Barron and Hood) were workers (not employees) with ABC Taxis NW Ltd from 2 May 2022 when they were placed on the payroll. Claimants 3, 4, and 5 (the drivers) were found to be self-employed throughout. The tribunal dismissed unfair dismissal and redundancy claims for claimants 1 and 2 as these require employee status. All claims for claimants 3, 4, and 5 were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Claims 1 and 2 may proceed to a further hearing for worker-status claims.
Practical note
The distinction between employee, worker, and self-employed status turns on the economic reality of the relationship, not the parties' stated intentions—particularly crucial in the gig economy and taxi sector where labelling may not reflect true legal status.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2411388/2023
- Decision date
- 14 August 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- transport
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Dispatcher/Manager (Claimant 1), Operator (Claimant 2), Driver (Claimants 3, 4, 5)
- Service
- 3 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep