Cases3201821/2023

Claimant v Uber London Limited

5 June 2025Before Employment Judge A M SnelsonLondon Centralin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Holiday Payfailed

Claim dismissed on jurisdictional grounds as out of time. Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for claimant to file within three months of payment falling due. Claimant had internet access, was aware of time limits, and knew others were taking legal action. Over two years delay was not a reasonable further period.

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesfailed

Claim dismissed on jurisdictional grounds as out of time. Based on national minimum wage provisions, claim was subject to three-month time limit. Claimant could not demonstrate it was not reasonably practicable to file in time, and the delay of over two years and four months was not reasonable.

Facts

Claimant was an Uber driver since 2014, classified as Diamond Driver. He brought claims for holiday pay and national minimum wage deductions relating to period before 15 March 2021, but did not file until September 2023. He explained he had been aware of time limits but not the detail, wished to negotiate with Uber, tried their compensation scheme, and was extremely busy working long hours and caring for son with special medical needs. He accepted he had internet access and could have researched his rights.

Decision

Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction as claims were out of time. Judge accepted claimant had good substantive claim and was sincere, dedicated, loyal worker deserving sympathy. However, claimant failed both limbs of statutory test: it was reasonably practicable to file in time as he had internet access and was aware others were taking action, and the delay of over two years was not a reasonable further period.

Practical note

Even where a claimant has a meritorious substantive claim and sympathetic personal circumstances, the 'not reasonably practicable' test for extending time limits under ERA 1996 s23 and Working Time Regulations reg 30 is strictly applied, and delays of over two years will be fatal to jurisdiction.

Legal authorities cited

Palmer v Southend-on-Sea BC [1984] ICR 372 CA

Statutes

Employment Rights Act 1996 s23Employment Rights Act 1996 s23(4)Working Time Regulations 1998 reg 30

Case details

Case number
3201821/2023
Decision date
5 June 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
transport
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Uber driver

Claimant representation

Represented
No