Race - self-employed driver not contractually obliged to execute any work or labour for taxi service operator - employment tribunal having no jurisdiction to hear driver's discrimination claim against service operator

Mingeley v Pennock and Ivory, trading as Amber Cars: CA (Lords Justice Buxton and Maurice Kay and Sir Martin Nourse): 12 February 2004

The claimant was a self-employed taxi driver.

By his contract with the respondent he paid 75 per week for a radio and access to its computer system.

The local authority required the respondent to retain his licence so that he could not work for another operator; he was not obliged to work any particular hours, or at all; he kept all the fare money; and he could not appoint another person to drive in his place.

He commenced proceedings in the employment tribunal alleging discrimination on the grounds of his race.

The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim because the claimant was not obliged personally to carry out any work or labour within the meaning of section 78(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claimant's appeal.

The claimant appealed.

Simon Bull (instructed by George Warsi & Co, Dewsbury) for the claimant; Rajeev Thacker (instructed by Harehills and Chapeltown Law Centre, Leeds) for the respondent.

Held, dismissing the appeal, that the matter had to be approached on the strict contractual position rather than on the commercial reality; that the dominant purpose of the contract was that the claimant should pay 75 per week for access to the respondents' radio and computer system while the work was carried out under a collateral contract between the applicant and the paying passengers, not that the claimant be obliged personally to execute any work or labour; and that, accordingly, the claimant was not required by the contract personally to 'execute any work or labour' within the meaning of section 78(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976.