Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

C Johnson v GT Gettaxi (UK) Ltd

[2024] EAT 162
A black cab driver used a taxi app for some fares but mostly worked independently. A court said he wasn't an 'employee' or 'worker' of the app company because he ran his own business and the app was just extra work, not his main job. A higher court agreed.

Key Facts

  • Mr. C Johnson appealed an Employment Tribunal decision finding him not to be a worker for GT Gettaxi (UK) Ltd.
  • Johnson used the respondent's black cab app between 2015 and 2017, with app earnings representing about 5% of his total earnings.
  • He applied to rejoin the app in 2020 but was refused.
  • The Tribunal considered the Hackney Carriage Regulations, the contracts between the respondent and drivers, fare setting, obligation to accept requests, and monitoring of acceptance and cancellation rates.
  • The Tribunal found that drivers using the app were primarily in business on their own account, using the app as an additional way to obtain fares.
  • The Tribunal distinguished the case from Uber, emphasizing that drivers were bound by TfL regulations regarding fares and ride acceptance.

Legal Principles

Definition of 'worker' under Section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Employment Rights Act 1996

The 'true agreement' between parties should be ascertained, disregarding contractual wording that misrepresents the reality of the relationship.

Autoclenz Limited v Belcher & Ors [2011] UKSC 41

In determining worker status, the focus should be on the statutory protections offered and the purposes of the relevant legislation, rather than pure contractual construction.

Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5

Whether a person operates a profession or business undertaking is a matter of fact and impression, considering all relevant evidence.

Johnson v Transopco UK Limited [2022] EAT 6

An Employment Tribunal can consider activities outside of work for a putative employer to determine if an individual is undertaking a business activity.

Johnson v Transopco UK Limited [2022] EAT 6

Outcomes

The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed Mr. Johnson's appeal.

The EAT held that the Employment Tribunal did not err in law in finding that Mr. Johnson was not a worker. The Tribunal correctly considered the relevant legal principles and facts, weighing the evidence to conclude that Johnson was in business on his own account and the app use was supplementary, not defining his main business.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.