The Claimant was a cycle courier with the Respondent. The ET upheld his claim that he was a 'limb (b) worker' within the meaning of Regulation 2 of the Working Time Regulations and in consequence was entitled to holiday pay thereunder. In doing so it held that the written terms of contract between the parties, describing the Claimant as an 'independent contractor', did not reflect the reality of the relationship, and that, during the period when the Claimant was 'logged on' to the Respondent's app, there was a contract with mutual obligations for 'jobs' to be offered and accepted. The Respondent appealed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. The ET had reached an unimpeachable conclusion that there was a contract during the log-on periods with the requisite mutual obligations. The ET also rejected the Respondent's argument that the ET's multi-factorial assessment of whether the mutual obligations falling on the parties are such as to amount to the individual being a worker was so 'suffused with factual error' that it should be remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal.