In a recent case, Khan V English Private Hire Taxi , the applicant worked as a private hire taxi driver for the employer. He gave out a claim form to the employment tribunal stated the following:
“The company was not paying me, I was taking a fare from customers and pay a fee to the company as an agent of transacting business for others.”.
Chairman employment tribunal considered the claim form and decided he had no jurisdiction to hear the case because the relevant employment relationship had not been established. He rejected the claim. This rejection, the applicant appealed
The appeal was allowed: -.
– under the circumstances, it was held that the chairman had erred in rejecting the claim. The material obtained by the applicant of the nature of the employment relationship had to be taken at face value. Using this approach, the elements that have the employment relationship had been, for example, a situation that could be described as a “working relationship”, the Tribunal certainly had jurisdiction to hear the claim
-. The nature of the employment relationship in the case was ripe to study
– .. Facts considered such a relationship should have been considered by the court
– It was suggested that the applicant be ordered to provide the tribunal with further information stating the scope of the relationship work father to his claim to continue.
If you require further information please contact us at email@example.com
© RT COOPERS, 2007. This Briefing Note does not provide a comprehensive or complete statement of the law on issues discussed nor does it include legal advice. It is intended only to highlight general issues. Always sought expert legal advice in relation to certain conditions.