What is the ratio in Uber BV v Aslam?

Employment status must be determined by examining the reality of the working relationship, not contractual labels. Platform workers can be 'workers' entitled to employment rights despite contractual terms suggesting independence.

What did the court decide in Uber BV v Aslam?

The Supreme Court unanimously held that Uber drivers are 'workers' entitled to minimum wage, holiday pay and other employment protections, not independent contractors.

Why is Uber BV v Aslam important for employment law?

It extends worker protections to the gig economy and establishes that businesses cannot avoid employment responsibilities through contractual labeling when the reality suggests an employment relationship.

What is the ratio in Uber BV v Aslam?

Employment status must be determined by examining the reality of the working relationship, not contractual labels. Platform workers can be 'workers' entitled to employment rights despite contractual terms suggesting independence.

What did the court decide in Uber BV v Aslam?

The Supreme Court unanimously held that Uber drivers are 'workers' entitled to minimum wage, holiday pay and other employment protections, not independent contractors.

Why is Uber BV v Aslam important for employment law?

It extends worker protections to the gig economy and establishes that businesses cannot avoid employment responsibilities through contractual labeling when the reality suggests an employment relationship.

Employment1 min read

Uber BV v Aslam

[2021] UKSC 5Supreme Court2021

Cite this case in OSCOLA →All Employment cases →

“Supreme Court rules Uber drivers are workers, not self-employed contractors”

Facts

Uber drivers brought claims for employment rights including minimum wage and holiday pay. Uber argued the drivers were independent contractors who worked for themselves, while the drivers claimed they were workers entitled to statutory protections under employment law.

Issues

Whether Uber drivers should be classified as 'workers' within the meaning of s.230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, entitling them to minimum wage and other employment rights.

Held

The Supreme Court unanimously held that Uber drivers are 'workers' within the statutory definition and are entitled to minimum wage, paid annual leave, and other employment rights.

Significance

This decision provides crucial clarity for gig economy workers and establishes that platform companies cannot avoid employment obligations simply by labeling workers as independent contractors. It has significant implications for the broader gig economy sector.

Read the full brief — free

You're reading the free summary of Uber BV v Aslam. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.

Create free account Already have one? Sign in

No card required. Free forever.

OSCOLA Citation

Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5, [2021] ICR 657

Employment LawGig Economy Regulation

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

LLBSQE1CILEX

More Employment cases

Pepkolaj v Barrett Steel Ltd (Practice and Procedure)

[2026] UKEAT 14

Lamb v Teva UK Ltd (Unfair Dismissal)

[2026] UKEAT 8

J Mayanja v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council

[2026] EAT 7

Anea v OCS UK & I Ltd & Ors (Practice and Procedure)

[2026] UKEAT 21

MacAusland Design Limited v A Portosi

[2026] EAT 51

Chand v EE Ltd (Unfair dismissal; reason for dismissal; composite reason; fairness)

[2026] UKEAT 17

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.