Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

United Taxis Limited v R Comolly & Anor

[2023] EAT 93
A taxi driver worked for a taxi company through a shareholder. A judge said he couldn't be employed by both the shareholder and the company at the same time. The judge decided he was only employed by the shareholder, not the company.

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.

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.