Cases6010938/2024

Claimant v Uber London Limited

5 February 2025Before Employment Judge MartinLondon Eastremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found it did not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint of unfair dismissal. This was a preliminary issue determined before the merits, resulting in dismissal of the claim on jurisdictional grounds.

Facts

Mr Hussein brought an unfair dismissal claim against Uber London Limited. The case was heard as a preliminary hearing by video (CVP) to determine whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel with instructing solicitor in attendance.

Decision

The tribunal found it did not have jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal complaint and dismissed the claim. The lack of jurisdiction was likely related to employment status, as Uber drivers are typically classified as workers rather than employees, and only employees can bring unfair dismissal claims.

Practical note

This case reinforces the critical distinction between worker and employee status, particularly in the gig economy context where engagement models may preclude unfair dismissal claims despite other employment rights being available.

Case details

Case number
6010938/2024
Decision date
5 February 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
technology
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
No