Stuart Delivery Ltd v Augustine [2021] EWCA Civ 1514 (19 October 2021)

Stuart Delivery Ltd v Augustine [2021] EWCA Civ 1514 (19 October 2021)

The employment tribunal was entitled to find that the claimant was a worker under section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because, despite a limited ability to release slots to other couriers, the system did not provide a sufficient right of substitution to remove the obligation of personal performance. The right to substitute was conditional, limited, and did not negate the requirement for the claimant to perform work personally.

Citation
[2021] EWCA Civ 1514
Parties
Appellant: Stuart Delivery Ltd; Respondent: Warren Augustine
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Worker Status, Employment Rights Act 1996 Section 230(3)(b), Right of Substitution, Personal Performance, Gig Economy, Employment Tribunal Procedure
Employment Law Worker Status Employment Rights Act 1996 Section 230(3)(b) Right of Substitution Personal Performance Gig Economy Employment Tribunal Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stuart Delivery Ltd

Appellant

Warren Augustine

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was a 'worker' under section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the right of substitution available to the claimant was sufficient to negate an obligation of personal performance

Ratio Decidendi

The employment tribunal was entitled to find that the claimant was a worker under section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because, despite a limited ability to release slots to other couriers, the system did not provide a sufficient right of substitution to remove the obligation of personal performance. The right to substitute was conditional, limited, and did not negate the requirement for the claimant to perform work personally.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.