Claimant v Uber London Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Struck out on three grounds: (1) claimant was not an employee but a worker under s.230 ERA 1996, following Supreme Court decision in Uber v Aslam; (2) claim presented nearly two years out of time and claimant failed to prove it was not reasonably practicable to present in time; (3) claimant had only 4 months' service, insufficient for the 2-year qualifying period under s.108 ERA 1996.
Withdrawn by claimant during hearing after confirming he was owed no money on termination.
Withdrawn by claimant during hearing after confirming he was owed no money on termination.
Withdrawn by claimant during hearing after confirming he was owed no money on termination.
Withdrawn by claimant during hearing.
Withdrawn by claimant during hearing.
Facts
Mr Iqbal worked as a driver for Uber from August 2022 to December 2022 (4 months). On 2 December 2022, a passenger complained about his conduct. Uber terminated his access on 5 December 2022. He did not pursue a tribunal claim until starting ACAS early conciliation on 18 September 2024 (nearly two years later), obtaining a certificate on 7 October 2024, and filing his ET1 on 1 November 2024. He claimed he contacted a trade union and his MP but received no advice about tribunal proceedings. During the hearing he withdrew all monetary claims confirming he was owed nothing.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim on three independent grounds: (1) the claimant was a worker, not an employee, following the Supreme Court's decision in Uber v Aslam; (2) the claim was presented nearly 23 months out of time and the claimant failed to prove it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time, given he had a smartphone and could have made simple online enquiries; (3) he had only 4 months' service, well short of the two-year qualifying period. All other claims were dismissed upon withdrawal.
Practical note
Uber drivers remain workers, not employees, post-Aslam, and gig economy workers with short service bringing out-of-time claims face insurmountable jurisdictional barriers even where they perceive injustice, particularly where they fail to make basic enquiries using readily available technology.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3202211/2024
- Decision date
- 1 May 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- transport
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Driver
- Service
- 4 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No