Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Case lawLatest NewsGig economy

What the Stuart Delivery case tells us about the right of substitution

by Jo Broadbent and Stefan Martin 26 Oct 2021
by Jo Broadbent and Stefan Martin 26 Oct 2021 Mr Augustine was a moped courier for Stuart Delivery
Shutterstock
Mr Augustine was a moped courier for Stuart Delivery
Shutterstock

Worker status determinations in the courts usually revolve around whether a worker can provide a substitute to carry out their tasks. Jo Broadbent and Stefan Martin consider a recent case that involved a courier who could choose to release work to others, and whether it could have an impact on case law.

In Stuart Delivery Ltd v Augustine, the UK Court of Appeal confirmed that a courier who could offer a time slot he had signed up to cover to other couriers was still obliged to perform work personally. This meant that he was a worker under employment protection legislation, despite having a limited right of substitution.

Mr Augustine worked for Stuart Delivery as a courier. He could accept jobs on an ad-hoc basis, or sign up to work at particular times, which were referred to as slots. There were financial incentives to sign up to slots. If a courier either could not or did not want to work a slot they had agreed to, they could offer it to other couriers on the platform. However, if no-one else agreed to work the slot, there were penalties if the original courier did not do so.

When the relationship ended, Mr Augustine claimed that he was a worker and entitled not to have unauthorised deductions made from his pay and protections under the Working Time Regulations.

Stuart Delivery argued that he was not a worker because he was not obliged to perform services personally as he could send a substitute to work if he was no longer able or willing to perform one of his slots. The obligation to provide services personally is a pre-requisite for a worker relationship.

Worker status challenges

Online property firms face class action from ‘self employed’ agents

Amazon delivery drivers launch claim for employment rights

Bounds Taxis drivers are workers, tribunal finds

What the courts said

The employment tribunal and EAT upheld the claims, finding that Mr Augustine’s right to offer a slot to a substitute did not negate the requirement to provide services personally. Stuart Delivery appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the tribunal and EAT had misunderstood earlier case law on the right of substitution.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The fundamental issue was whether the claimant undertook to perform personally work or services for Stuart Delivery. In Pimlico Plumbers v Smith [2017] the Court of Appeal had considered when a right to send a substitute negatived an obligation of personal service. The key points from that judgment were:

  • An unfettered right of substitution is inconsistent with an obligation to perform work personally; and
  • A conditional right to substitute may or may not be inconsistent with personal service, depending on the conditions that attach to the exercise of the right.

However, it was important not to read the case as establishing strict rules about when a right of substitution will or will not negate the requirement for personal service. It does not set down categories into which particular circumstances can be shoe-horned in order to establish whether an individual owes an obligation of personal service.

In this case the tribunal decided that the right of substitution was not inconsistent with a personal service obligation. The system was designed to ensure that couriers worked the slots for which they had signed up. A limited right to notify other Stuart Delivery couriers that an individual was prepared to release a slot was not a sufficient right of substitution to remove the obligation personally to perform work.

Next steps

This is another example of tribunals and courts looking to the reality of a situation when deciding issues of employment and worker status. As the Court of Appeal observed, the examples given in Pimlico Plumbers v Smith of what types of rights of substitution may or may not negate an obligation to provide service personally are just that: examples. They do not set down rigid classifications that are binding on other courts.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

The real question to be addressed in every case is whether the nature and degree of any restriction on the right or ability to appoint a substitute is inconsistent with an obligation of personal performance.

HR Director opportunities on Personnel Today


Browse more HR director jobs

Jo Broadbent and Stefan Martin

Jo and Stefan are both employment law specialists at Hogan Lovells.

previous post
UK gender pay gap progress slow as motherhood penalty persists
next post
Portugal set to pass worker status legislation

You may also like

How can businesses build protections for gig workers?

7 May 2025

Uber drivers experience ‘false autonomy’ over work

16 Apr 2025

Home Office reveals employers’ costly right-to-work mistakes

7 Apr 2025

New right to work checks put onus on...

3 Apr 2025

Close loopholes that let rogue firms undercut best...

3 Mar 2025

‘Freelance’ apps warned they could be breaking law

28 Jan 2025

Deliveroo, Just Eat and Uber face calls for...

20 Jan 2025

Bolt drivers win worker status at tribunal

8 Nov 2024

McDonald’s accused of threatening Uber Eats drivers

28 Oct 2024

Lib Dems unveil 2024 election manifesto

10 Jun 2024

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+