EAT rules that taxi driver could not simultaneously be employee and worker of two different employers in respect of same work

In the case of United Taxis Limited v (1) Mr R Comolly (2) Mr R Tidman v Mr R Tidman v (1) United Taxis Limited v (2) Mr R Comolly, Mr Comolly is a taxi driver. He registered with United Taxis and then did work driving United Taxis’ passengers, through one of its shareholders, Mr Parkinson, using his taxi. After that relationship came to an end, he did work driving United Taxis’ passengers, through another shareholder, Mr Tidman, using his taxi.

In the case of United Taxis Limited v (1) Mr R Comolly (2) Mr R Tidman v Mr R Tidman v (1) United Taxis Limited v (2) Mr R Comolly, Mr Comolly is a taxi driver. He registered with United Taxis and then did work driving United Taxis’ passengers, through one of its shareholders, Mr Parkinson, using his taxi. After that relationship came to an end, he did work driving United Taxis’ passengers, through another shareholder, Mr Tidman, using his taxi.

After that relationship ended, he brought various complaints to the employment tribunal asserting that he was either an employee or a worker of United Taxis or Mr Tidman.

The tribunal determined as preliminary issues that Mr Comolly was a worker of United Taxis and an employee of Mr Tidman.

On the facts found the tribunal properly concluded that United Taxis’ passengers’ contracts were, and were solely, with United Taxis. It also properly concluded that, under Mr Comolly’s contract with Mr Tidman, Mr Comolly provided services to him in exchange for payment. United Taxis contracted out the task of conveying its passengers to Mr Tidman, who in turn sub-contracted it to Mr Comolly.

However, the tribunal erred in finding that Mr Tidman had a contract with United Taxis under which he also did work for it. There was no necessity to imply such a contract, whether from the fact that he registered with United Taxis and was required to comply with its rules and byelaws as a condition of being permitted to convey its passengers, or otherwise.

The tribunal could also not properly find that he was simultaneously an employee or worker of two employers in respect of the same work.

The tribunal also erred in finding that Mr Comolly’s contract with Mr Tidman was a contract of employment, in particular in its approach to the question of control. Drawing on its findings of fact, a finding was substituted that Mr Comolly was a worker of Mr Tidman.

Read more

Latest News

Read More

‘It’s really amazing, what these women have been able to do!’

14 November 2024

Newsletter

Receive the latest HR news and strategic content

Please note, as per the GDPR Legislation, we need to ensure you are ‘Opted In’ to receive updates from ‘theHRDIRECTOR’. We will NEVER sell, rent, share or give away your data to third parties. We only use it to send information about our products and updates within the HR space To see our Privacy Policy – click here

Latest HR Jobs

Leeds Arts UniversitySalary: £35,000 to £38,227 per annum This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court

University Of The Arts LondonSalary: £43,512 per annum This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court

My client, a growing logistics group, is seeking to hire an experienced and strategic HR Director to lead their Human Resources function. As the HR

Position: Human Resources Director Location: Central London Sector: Restaurants and Leisure Salary: £90k-140k excellent package Our client, a leading operator in the restaurants and leisure

Read the latest digital issue of theHRDIRECTOR for FREE

Read the latest digital issue of theHRDIRECTOR for FREE