HR Hub

Employment status - Addison Lee refused leave to appeal

The Court of Appeal has refused Addison Lee permission to appeal from the EAT decision that its drivers are ‘workers’.

In November 2018, the EAT held that three drivers for the courier company were ‘workers’ and not independent contractors. Addison Lee applied for permission to appeal against the EAT decision which was granted but then stayed pending the Uber case decision (on almost indistinguishable facts). In February 2021, the Supreme Court held that Uber drivers were ‘workers’ and not self-employed.

Following the decision in Uber, in April 2021 the Court of Appeal has refused Addison Lee permission to appeal on the basis that its appeal had no reasonable prospects of success. Addison Lee had sought to distinguish its case from Uber on the basis of differences in the contractual documentation. However, the Court of Appeal considered that the Addison Lee drivers had an express contract with Addison Lee that negated any mutuality of obligation as they could be subject to sanctions for refusing jobs. The Court of Appeal also considered that Uber confirmed that a tribunal should disregard any contractual provision that does not reflect reality. It was, held the Court of Appeal, an ‘unappealable finding of fact’ that an Addison Lee driver undertook to accept jobs allocated to them when they were logged on. The case now returns to the tribunal to decide on compensation.