Key Facts
- •Mr. Comolly is a taxi driver who worked for United Taxis (UT) via its shareholders, first Mr. Parkinson, then Mr. Tidman.
- •He used his own taxi but was subject to UT's rules and regulations.
- •Mr. Comolly claimed to be an employee or worker of UT and/or Mr. Tidman.
- •The Tribunal initially found Mr. Comolly to be an employee of Mr. Tidman and a worker of UT.
- •Passenger contracts were solely with UT.
- •Mr. Comolly and Mr. Tidman split fares 50/50.
- •Mr. Tidman controlled the taxi's availability, but Mr. Comolly chose which jobs to accept.
Legal Principles
Definition of 'employee' and 'contract of employment'
Employment Rights Act 1996, sections 230(1), 230(2)
Ready Mixed Concrete test for contract of service
Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions
Definition of 'worker'
Employment Rights Act 1996, section 230(3)
Uber BV v Aslam on worker status
Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5
James v Greenwich LBC on implying contracts
James v Greenwich LBC [2007] ICR 577
Dual employment is generally not legally possible
Various cases cited, including Cairns v Visteon UK Limited [2007] ICR 616
Byrne Brothers (Formwork) Limited v Baird on carrying on a business undertaking
Byrne Brothers (Formwork) Limited v Baird [2002] ICR 667
Outcomes
Appeal allowed for United Taxis; Mr. Comolly was neither a worker nor employee of UT.
The tribunal erred in implying a contract between Mr. Comolly and UT; dual employment is not legally possible.
Appeal allowed for Mr. Tidman; Mr. Comolly was a worker (and employee for Equality Act purposes) of Mr. Tidman.
The tribunal erred in its analysis of control and mutuality of obligation in the Mr. Comolly/Mr. Tidman relationship. While not an employee of Mr. Tidman, he was a worker.