Cases3200289/2024

Claimant v Uber Eats UK Limited

25 March 2025Before Employment Judge IllingEast Londonin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalstruck out

The tribunal found the claim was presented approximately 10 months out of time. The claimant had access to the internet via his phone (which he used for the Uber app), could seek assistance from his children or friends, and could have obtained free advice from organisations like Citizens Advice Bureau. The tribunal concluded it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have issued his claim in time but he failed to take reasonable steps to discover his rights. The claim was therefore dismissed for being out of time.

Facts

The claimant worked as a delivery driver for Uber Eats from October 2018 until his account was permanently deactivated on 22 February 2023 following discovery of a falsified insurance certificate. He communicated with the respondent via an app and could seek assistance from his children when needed. He did not bring his claim until February 2024, approximately 10 months out of time, claiming ignorance of his rights and language difficulties. He stated a friend told him about bringing a claim in around December 2023 but he waited a further 1-2 months before acting.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim as out of time. The tribunal found the claimant had the means to discover his rights through internet research on his phone (which he used for the Uber app), could seek help from his children or friends, and could have obtained free advice from Citizens Advice Bureau or law centres. The tribunal concluded it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time and the claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof.

Practical note

Language barriers and limited internet knowledge will not satisfy the 'not reasonably practicable' test where a claimant has demonstrated ability to use a smartphone app, has family members who can assist, and has access to free advice services but fails to take any steps to investigate their rights for nearly a year.

Legal authorities cited

Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd v Britton [2022] IRLR 906Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd [1974] 1 WLR 171Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan [1979] ICR 52Porter v Bandridge Ltd [1978] 1 WLR 1145Palmer & Another v Southend on Sea Borough Council [1984] ICR 372Asda Stores v Kauser EAT 0165/07Marks and Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan [2005] EWCA Civ 470

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.111(2)

Case details

Case number
3200289/2024
Decision date
25 March 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
technology
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
delivery driver
Service
4 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No