Background
509 private-hire drivers who made themselves available for hire via an app brought a tribunal claim against Veezu Companies Ltd for holiday pay, failure to pay national minimum wage, and failure to provide written particulars. The claim is dependent on the drivers being able to establish that they are workers or agency workers.
At a case management hearing in October 2024, an employment judge ordered the Claimants to provide further information, namely the dates and times they were logged onto other apps for driving services (known as “multi-apping”) as well as the dates they made themselves available to other businesses and/or clients. This information was considered necessary to determine the issue of worker status and to assist the parties in identifying the lead Claimants preliminary hearing in June 2026.
The Claimants attempted to agree a variation to the Order with the Respondent - to restrict the provision of that information to a smaller pool of lead Claimants. The Respondent did not agree, and the Claimants appealed the Order to the EAT on the basis that the Order was irrational, perverse, overly burdensome on the Claimant and was not in line with the overriding objective of dealing with cases proportionate to the complexity and importance of the issues.
Key Issues
- The EAT agreed, in line with the more recent cases of Bandi V Bolt OU and Afshar v Addison Lee) that evidence about the type and frequency of multi-apping (where a driver works for more than one operator) is relevant to determine the issue as to whether the drivers are workers.
- A Tribunal has the jurisdiction to make any Order for providing additional particulars of information about the claim, but only when necessary to do justice in the case, for the purpose of identifying the issues, and the request should not be oppressive.
Outcome
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) expressed their concern that the width of the Order placed a burden on the claimants that was arguably disproportionate at this preliminary stage, albeit that the information would be relevant to the issue of worker status. The EAT therefore set aside the original Order, and instead substituted the Order that there will be a pool of 12 potential lead Claimants who should provide all the information set out in the original Order. Further, they ordered that a sample of 125 randomly selected Claimants provide information via a questionnaire of their best estimate of the dates and times they were logged onto any other apps for the purposes of driving.
The EAT also confirmed it was within its powers under section 35 (1) (a) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 to make this decision itself, rather than send the case back to the tribunal. A judge making a case management decision which is not based on findings of fact does not infringe on the role of the employment tribunal in circumstances, as in this case, where the decision to make the Order was an error of law.
Why This Matters
This case clarifies the limits of what tribunals can ask Claimants to do, especially in large group claims. While relevant evidence like multi-apping matters in worker status cases, demands for data must be realistic and proportionate.
For Trade Union reps, this decision reinforces the principle that Claimants should not be overburdened at the evidence stage, especially when third-party data may be hard to obtain. It also supports the position that sample-based evidence can be fair and effective in multi-claimant cases.
