Independent Workers Union of Great Britain v Central Arbitration Committee [2018] EWHC 1939 (Admin) (15 June 2018)

Independent Workers Union of Great Britain v Central Arbitration Committee [2018] EWHC 1939 (Admin) (15 June 2018)

The CAC's finding that Deliveroo riders have a genuine and unfettered contractual right of substitution, both in the written contract and in practice, negates the obligation of personal service required for worker status under s.296(1)(b) of the 1992 Act. This finding is not susceptible to judicial review and does not raise an arguable error of law. Permission to proceed is granted only on the ground relating to collective bargaining rights under Article 11.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 1939 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Independent Workers Union of Great Britain; Defendant: Central Arbitration Committee; Interested Party: Roofoods Ltd T/A Deliveroo
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission
Outcome
Permission to proceed with judicial review granted only on ground 4 (collective bargaining rights); all other grounds refused. Cost capping application refused.
Legal Topics
Worker Status, Collective Bargaining, Substitution Clause, Personal Service, Trade Union Recognition, Judicial Review, Cost Capping, Public Interest Proceedings
Employment Law Administrative Law Human Rights Worker Status Collective Bargaining Substitution Clause Personal Service Trade Union Recognition +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Independent Workers Union of Great Britain

Claimant

Central Arbitration Committee

Defendant

Roofoods Ltd T/A Deliveroo

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Deliveroo riders are 'workers' under s.296(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
  2. 2 Whether the substitution clause negates personal service
  3. 3 Whether the CAC erred in law in its interpretation of the contract and statutory provisions

Ratio Decidendi

The CAC's finding that Deliveroo riders have a genuine and unfettered contractual right of substitution, both in the written contract and in practice, negates the obligation of personal service required for worker status under s.296(1)(b) of the 1992 Act. This finding is not susceptible to judicial review and does not raise an arguable error of law. Permission to proceed is granted only on the ground relating to collective bargaining rights under Article 11.

Court Disposition

Permission to proceed with judicial review granted only on ground 4 (collective bargaining rights); all other grounds refused. Cost capping application refused.

Orders

  • Costs order made by Butcher J set aside; costs of this hearing will be costs in the judicial review.
  • Standard case management directions issued: 35 days for detailed grounds, 21 days for reply, trial bundle four weeks before hearing, skeleton arguments 21 and 14 days before hearing, agreed bundle of authorities three days before hearing.