• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Deliveroo claims victory in self-employment case

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #21
    Not sure if this is a good or bad thing for Deliveroo...but has this case just set a precedent that simply having the right to send a substitution is a key pointer for not being employed? Ergo, simply having a contractual right to substitution (whether you've ever used it or not) could be equally as important in an IR35 case?

    I realise this was sort of already the case, but does this make it harder for HMRC to make the whole "sham clause" attack?

    Comment


      #22
      Originally posted by Fred Bloggs View Post
      Agreed, and likely both would lose their taxi licences. But that does not stop #2 from driving #1's car for UBER as a sub. Hence, if I were UBER, I'd be making the case that my people were just like Deliveroo's. It really, really, is a total mess. Different vested interests pulling the courts in different directions. The lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank. Now, if only there were a statutory definition of the different types of worker, all our problems would be solved
      It is technically possible but it is not the way the business model is constructed and any driver who did this would face disciplinary action.
      "He's actually ripped" - Jared Padalecki

      https://youtu.be/l-PUnsCL590?list=PL...dNeCyi9a&t=615

      Comment


        #23
        Originally posted by TheCyclingProgrammer View Post
        Not sure if this is a good or bad thing for Deliveroo...but has this case just set a precedent that simply having the right to send a substitution is a key pointer for not being employed? Ergo, simply having a contractual right to substitution (whether you've ever used it or not) could be equally as important in an IR35 case?

        I realise this was sort of already the case, but does this make it harder for HMRC to make the whole "sham clause" attack?
        I’m not sure it changes things in the way you suggest, as even HMRC’s heavily biased tool gives up and calls you Outside if you can send a substitute in real life, not just on paper. But one thing it does do for sure is strengthen your defence if you can prove your client would actually agree to one, in principle.

        Comment


          #24
          Originally posted by MyUserName View Post
          It is technically possible but it is not the way the business model is constructed and any driver who did this would face disciplinary action.
          Which makes them a worker.
          "You’re just a bad memory who doesn’t know when to go away" JR

          Comment


            #25
            Originally posted by SueEllen View Post
            True but so could your local pizza delivery guys.
            They are employees.

            Comment


              #26
              Originally posted by northernladyuk View Post
              They are employees.
              Are you sure?

              Some will be while some won't be thanks to Deliveroo and Ubereats
              "You’re just a bad memory who doesn’t know when to go away" JR

              Comment

              Working...
              X