Johnson v Transopco UK Ltd (WORKER STATUS) [2022] EAT 6 (18 January 2022)

Johnson v Transopco UK Ltd (WORKER STATUS) [2022] EAT 6 (18 January 2022)

The claimant was not a worker of the respondent because the respondent was a client or customer of his taxi-driving business; the tribunal's evaluative judgment on independence, control, integration, and financial risk was not wrong in law or perverse and properly applied binding authority.

Citation
[2022] EAT 6
Parties
Appellant: Mr Christopher Johnson; Respondent: Transopco UK Ltd
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
18 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Worker Status, Employment Rights, Client or Customer Exception, Personal Service, Subordination, Control, Integration, Mutuality of Obligation
Employment Law Worker Status Employment Rights Client or Customer Exception Personal Service Subordination Control Integration +1 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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Christopher Johnson

Appellant

Transopco UK Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was a 'worker' under section 230(3)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was a client or customer of the claimant's taxi-driving business
  3. 3 Whether the tribunal erred in its approach to control, integration, and financial risk

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was not a worker of the respondent because the respondent was a client or customer of his taxi-driving business; the tribunal's evaluative judgment on independence, control, integration, and financial risk was not wrong in law or perverse and properly applied binding authority.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No change to tribunal's decision
  • Claimant not a worker under section 230(3)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996