Comments on: Legal Takeaway: Who’s who for Deliveroo? https://www.legalcheek.com/lc-journal-posts/legal-takeaway-whos-who-for-deliveroo/ Legal news, insider insight and careers advice Tue, 12 Dec 2023 12:56:00 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.5 By: AO https://www.legalcheek.com/lc-journal-posts/legal-takeaway-whos-who-for-deliveroo/#comment-1182773 Tue, 12 Dec 2023 12:56:00 +0000 https://www.legalcheek.com/?post_type=lc-journal-posts&p=198340#comment-1182773 Now that the line has been drawn, I wouldn’t be surprised if similar companies start modelling their businesses on deliveroo now to avoid these benefits offered to employees. What stops Uber copying this?

]]> By: JB https://www.legalcheek.com/lc-journal-posts/legal-takeaway-whos-who-for-deliveroo/#comment-1182740 Mon, 11 Dec 2023 11:45:14 +0000 https://www.legalcheek.com/?post_type=lc-journal-posts&p=198340#comment-1182740 Extremely disappointing judgment by the UKSC. The substitution clause argument raised was very poor, as the clause was meaningfully limited (Deliveroo drivers were, for example, required to provide their substitute with their own phone and account to log in on their behalf – who in their right mind is hadning over their phone for hours in this day and age?). It is also dreadfully out of tune with the decision in Uber v Aslam with the focus on statutory interpretation and the needs of workers, rather than taking the agreements at face value.

Perhaps Lloyd-Jones and Rose should consult Street v Mountford and the Rent Acts a few more times before trying again.

]]>