Relation to Coursework
Uber drivers had to prove “worker” status.
On the contrary, Bella must prove this to succeed in defamation.
defamation
Uber
These 3 companies were the appellants:
Uber BV (Netherlands), Uber London Ltd, and Uber Britannia Ltd
The central legal question was whether drivers fit this category under UK law
'Worker' status under the Employment Rights Act 1996
What is a person who commits a tort called
the tortfeasor
Just as Uber exercised control over drivers, a newspaper may be liable if it does this to freelancers
directing, editing, and profiting from their work
The Court confirmed that Uber drivers were classified as this under s.230(3)(b) ERA 1996
Worker status
These individuals, along with other Uber drivers, were the respondents
Yaseen Aslam, James Farrar, and Robert Dawson
The Court emphasised examining this, rather than relying solely on Uber's written contracts.
The reality of the working arrangement
This tort occurs when someone intentionally causes another to fear immediate unlawful force
Assault
Uber couldn’t avoid responsibility by relying on this, and The Telegram may face the same limitation
Contractual wording
Uber exercised significant control over drivers in these four areas
Fares, contractual terms, performance monitoring, and access to the app
Unlike Deliveroo drivers, Uber drivers could not do this, showing their personal obligation to perform the work
delegate or substitute another driver
One contested issue was whether drivers were only working during trips, or also during this period
while logged into the app and available for work
What was the 2 stage test established in Campbell v MGN
1. Reasonable expectation of privacy
2. Balancing test (Art 8 v Art 10 ECHR)
If a journalist or photographer is effectively integrated into the newspaper’s operations, this doctrine may apply
the Court hekd that these documents did not reflect the reality of the working relationship
Written contracts
Passengers booking an Uber are given this information, which ties the service to a specific driver under minicab regulations
the driver’s name and vehicle registration
Uber’s ability to set fares, control customer access, and monitor performance was central to assessing this factor
the level of control Uber exercised over drivers
This doctrine allows liability even without fault
Strict Liability
The coursework scenario parallels Uber because The Telegram may not escape liability for Snoop Canid’s article if it does this
exercising control and integrating his work into the paper’s business
Key takeaway of the judgement was that Uber Drivers are workers, marking this broader impact
A major step in strengthening rights across the gig economy
Because of Uber’s control and drivers’ dependency, the Court classified them not as contractors but as this
“workers” entitled to statutory protections
The overall legal question was whether Uber’s control and drivers’ dependency meant they qualified for these statutory protections
worker rights and protections (minimum wage, paid holiday, etc.)
The principle where the facts themselves imply negligence, even without direct evidence of the defendant's conduct
Res Ipsa Loquitur