All leading cases

UK Supreme Court

Uber BV v Aslam

[2021] UKSC 5

Applies the worker-status test to platform work and defines when Uber drivers were working.

employment statusworkerworking time

Legal principle

Worker status is a statutory question guided by the protective purpose of employment legislation. Contract terms cannot dictate the answer where the practical relationship shows personal service and subordination to a business exercising substantial control.

What the court decided

The Supreme Court held that the drivers were workers and that working time included periods when they were logged into the app, in their authorised area and ready and willing to accept trips.

The practical test

  1. 1

    Identify the statutory definition and the personal-service obligation.

  2. 2

    Assess the degree of control over pay, contractual terms, task acceptance, performance and customer contact.

  3. 3

    Decide whether the individual operated an independent business whose client or customer was the other party.

How tribunals apply it

  • The greater the control exercised by the platform, the stronger the indication of worker status.
  • The written agreement is part of the evidence but does not have contractual primacy over the statute.
  • Working-time findings depend on the particular platform arrangements and any ability to work simultaneously for competitors.

Connected legislation

WorkDisputes tribunal data

These decisions are selected from topic classifications in our public Employment Tribunal dataset. A matching topic does not mean the decision applied this authority directly.

21 Sept 2026
Mixed outcome

Unfair Dismissal, Discrimination and Unpaid Wages

Employer: Lynx Support Services Ltd

The claims for unauthorised deductions and unfair dismissal were dismissed as out of time, while the discrimination claims were allowed to proceed.

Legal Issues (3)
  • Time limits
  • jurisdiction
  • just and equitable extension of time limits

Reference: 6023481/2024

21 Sept 2026
Claimant won£24,068.98 awarded

Unpaid Wages

Employer: Media Stream AI Ltd

The tribunal found both claims well-founded and awarded the claimant £24,068.98 in total.

Legal Issues (2)
  • Unauthorised deductions from wages under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996
  • entitlement to accrued holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998

Reference: 6006748/2026

11 Sept 2026
Claimant won£15,050.19 awarded

Unfair Dismissal, Unpaid Wages and Other

Employer: TripleForce Security Ltd (in voluntary liquidation)

All claims (unfair dismissal, unpaid notice pay, unpaid holiday pay, and failure to provide written statement) succeeded, with monetary awards made.

Legal Issues (4)
  • Unfair dismissal (basic award)
  • unpaid notice pay
  • unpaid holiday pay
  • failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars (section 38 Employment Act 2002)

Reference: 3306076/2023

11 Sept 2026
Claim dismissed

Unfair Dismissal, Discrimination, Unpaid Wages, Breach of Contract and Harassment

Employer: Verisure Services (UK) Ltd

All claims dismissed; claimant was fairly dismissed, disability and wage claims dismissed as out of time or on merits, and breach of contract claim without jurisdiction.

Legal Issues (6)
  • Jurisdiction over time-barred claims
  • definition of disability (stress/anxiety and shoulder pain accepted; other conditions not)
  • unfair dismissal test
  • disability discrimination (reasonable adjustments, harassment, discrimination arising from disability)
  • unlawful deduction from wages (including notice pay, holiday pay, commission, SSP, and an overpayment deduction)
  • breach of contract claim brought during employment

Reference: 1308699/2023

11 Sept 2026
Claimant won£5,694.53 awarded

Unpaid Wages and Breach of Contract

Employer: Pharma Targeting Ltd

The tribunal found in favour of the claimant on all claims and ordered the respondent to pay the specified amounts.

Legal Issues (2)
  • Whether the respondent made unlawful deductions from wages contrary to the Employment Rights Act 1996
  • whether the respondent was in breach of contract for failing to provide notice pay and employer pension contributions

Reference: 6004492/2026

10 Sept 2026
Mixed outcome£2,287.54 awarded

Unpaid Wages and Other

Employer: Leo Group Ltd

The claimant succeeded on all claims against the first respondent but claims against the second and third respondents were dismissed.

Legal Issues (5)
  • Default judgment under rule 22
  • claims for unauthorised deductions
  • holiday pay
  • written statement of particulars
  • itemized pay statements

Reference: 6012139/2026