The ET and EAT held that the Claimant drivers were "workers" satisfying the definition set out in section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the related provisions of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 ("limb (b) workers"); and also that the periods of work for which they should be paid were the periods during which they were logged on to Addison Lee's internal driver portal system. The company appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal which handed down a judgment on 14 November 2018  dismissing the appeal. Addison Lee applied to this court for permission to appeal.

The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal. There was no arguable error in the finding of the ET, upheld by the EAT, that in the present case the Claimants were limb (b) workers. Now that the Supreme Court in Uber has emphatically reaffirmed the Autoclenz principle. there is no longer a reasonable prospect of success in overturning that finding in the present case and there is no compelling reason why this appeal should proceed further.

Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii or download the judgment by clicking the link below.