The claimant is a taxi driver, registered with respondent, United Taxis, but who initially worked through one the hire company's shareholders. That arrangement ended so the claimant worked with another shareholder (Mr Tidman). After that relationship ended the claimant brought various complaints to the employment tribunal asserting that he was either an employee or a worker of United Taxis or Mr Tidman. The ET determined, as a preliminary issue, the claimant was a worker of United Taxis and an employee of Mr Tidman.

In this appeal, HHJ Auerbach allows the appeals stating at [59] the tribunal could not properly have concluded that Mr Comolly had a worker contract with United Taxis, there was no need to remit the matter, and he substituted a finding the claimant was neither a worker nor an employee of theirs. He also found the claimant, after analysis of the decision in Byrne Brothers, was a worker of Mr Tidman (and an employee for Equality Act purposes) and substituted that decision as well.