Franchisee driver's worker status claim struck out after binding precedent on substitution
A DPD franchisee driver who accepted his circumstances were identical to a previous case lost his worker status claim after the tribunal struck it out as having no reasonable prospect of success.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #franchise-agreement
- #no-personal-service
- #strike-out
- #worker-status
- #substitution
Key facts
- The claimant was a franchisee driver for DPD under a franchise agreement.
- The franchise agreement allowed the claimant to provide a driver other than himself.
- The claimant accepted his circumstances were the same as in the Stojsavljevic case.
- The EAT had already determined that the substitution clause was valid and there was no personal service.
- The claimant's claim was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Timeline
-
Stojsavljevic tribunal hearing
The Watford Tribunal heard the Stojsavljevic case regarding DPD franchisee status.
-
Stojsavljevic judgment
The Watford Tribunal issued its judgment in Stojsavljevic.
-
Stojsavljevic reconsideration
The Watford Tribunal reconsidered the Stojsavljevic case.
-
Claim presented
Mr P Patel presented his claim to the Employment Tribunal.
-
EAT hearing in Stojsavljevic
The EAT heard the appeal in Stojsavljevic.
-
EAT judgment in Stojsavljevic
The EAT upheld the tribunal's decision, finding no personal service.
-
Claimant's email
The claimant's representative sent an email accepting the facts were the same as Stojsavljevic but arguing training and emergency cover were not considered.
-
Strike-out hearing
Employment Judge Wright heard the respondent's application to strike out the claim.
-
Judgment issued
The claim was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was a 'worker' under employment law, given his franchise agreement allowed him to send another driver in his place. The central question was whether that substitution right meant he was not required to perform work personally, which is essential for worker status.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success.
- The claimant accepted his franchise agreement and working arrangements were the same as in the earlier case of Stojsavljevic v DPD Group UK Ltd, where the EAT had already ruled that a valid substitution clause meant there was no obligation of personal service.
- The claimant argued that issues of training and emergency cover had not been considered in that case, but the tribunal found they had been fully considered and rejected.
- No compensation was awarded as the claim was struck out before trial.
Lessons & takeaways
- If a tribunal or appeal court has already decided a nearly identical case, your claim may be struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.
- A substitution clause that genuinely allows you to send a replacement can prevent you from being classified as a worker or employee.
- To challenge a binding precedent, you need to show that your case is materially different on the facts or law, not just that the earlier decision was wrong.
- Accepting that your circumstances are the same as a previous case makes it very difficult to argue for a different outcome.
A case that was over before it began
This case shows how a single legal precedent can shut down an entire claim. The franchisee driver accepted that his contract and working arrangements were identical to those in Stojsavljevic v DPD Group UK Ltd, where the Employment Appeal Tribunal had already ruled that a valid substitution clause meant the driver was not a 'worker' entitled to employment rights.
What the tribunal decided
Employment Judge Wright struck out the claim under Rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant's representative tried to argue that the earlier case had not considered how training requirements and emergency cover arrangements affected the right to substitute. But the tribunal checked the original reasons and found those points had been dealt with in detail. The judge noted that the claimant's real complaint was that the EAT's decision was wrong, but that is not a basis for bringing a fresh claim.
What this means for similar claims
Franchise drivers and other gig-economy workers need to check whether a binding decision already covers their situation. If the key facts—especially the contractual right to send a substitute—are the same, a tribunal is likely to strike out the claim early. The case also highlights how important it is to identify genuine factual differences before bringing a claim that relies on overturning an established precedent.
Similar cases
Wasted costs application against NHS Trust solicitors dismissed after settlement agreement
A junior doctor's attempt to obtain a wasted costs order against the solicitors for an NHS Trust was dismissed because a 2018 settlement agreement precluded the application and there was no improper conduct.
Taxi driver found to be employee and worker, awarded £5,181 for unlawful deductions
A private hire taxi driver was found to be an employee of the vehicle owner and a worker of the dispatch company. He was awarded £5,181.48 for unlawful deduction of wages, but his age discrimination claim was dismissed.
Redundancy claim struck out for non-disclosure: costs of £6,853 awarded
A senior manager's unfair dismissal claim was struck out after he failed to disclose documents about his new job. The tribunal ordered him to pay £6,853 in costs for unreasonable conduct.
Claim struck out after failure to comply with tribunal orders due to ill-health
A former employee's unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims against Marks and Spencer were struck out after she failed to comply with tribunal orders and did not actively pursue her claim.