School delivery driver and taxi driver: employment status settled before final hearing
A tribunal found that a school delivery driver was an employee for that role but only a worker for taxi work. The case settled before the final hearing, with no compensation awarded.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #school-delivery-driver
- #taxi-driver
- #worker-status
- #employee-status
- #personal-service
- #mutuality-of-obligation
- #settlement
Key facts
- Mr Hockin worked as a school delivery driver for a flat weekly wage of £200, paid in cash.
- He also worked as a taxi driver using a company-provided vehicle, paying £100 per week for its use.
- There was no written contract; Mr Hockin was treated as self-employed and paid no tax or NI.
- The respondent dismissed Mr Hockin on 20 July 2021 for gross misconduct related to business cards.
- The tribunal found Mr Hockin was an employee for the school delivery work and a worker for the taxi work.
- The case was settled by consent on 3 January 2023, with terms to be implemented.
Timeline
-
Started school delivery work
Mr Hockin began working as a school delivery driver for Bernie Taxi Services, paid £200 per week in cash.
-
Started taxi driving
After about three months, Mr Hockin obtained a taxi license and began taxi driving using the company vehicle, paying £100 per week for its use.
-
Dismissal
Mr Hockin was dismissed for gross misconduct, accused of handing out business cards with his own phone number.
-
Preliminary hearing on status
Employment Judge Fowell held a preliminary hearing to determine Mr Hockin's employment status for the school delivery and taxi work.
-
Judgment sent to parties
The written judgment on the preliminary issue was sent to the parties.
-
Reasons sent to parties
Written reasons for the preliminary judgment were sent to the parties.
-
Final hearing and settlement
The case was listed for final hearing but the parties reached a settlement by consent, and the case was adjourned for implementation.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was a worker or an employee for his two distinct roles: school delivery driver and taxi driver. This determined his eligibility for claims like unfair dismissal, notice pay, and holiday pay.
The outcome
The tribunal ruled on a preliminary issue that the claimant was an employee (and a worker) for the school delivery work, but only a worker for the taxi driving work. This meant he could pursue unfair dismissal and other claims for the school delivery role.
The case was listed for a final hearing on 3 January 2023, but the parties reached a settlement by consent. The hearing was adjourned for the settlement terms to be implemented. No compensation was awarded by the tribunal.
- Damages: None (settled, no tribunal award)
Lessons & takeaways
- Employment status can differ for separate roles with the same employer, so it's important to consider each role individually.
- A lack of written contract and cash payments without tax deductions does not automatically mean you are self-employed.
- If you do regular, structured work like a school run, you may be an employee even if treated as self-employed.
- Settlement before a final hearing is common and can avoid the uncertainty of a tribunal decision.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights how employment status can vary depending on the nature of the work. The claimant drove a school minibus on a fixed route for a flat weekly wage, which gave him employee status. But when he also drove taxis on a first-come, first-served basis, paying for the vehicle, he was only a worker. The tribunal distinguished between the two roles based on factors like control, mutuality of obligation, and personal service.
What the respondent could have done differently
Mr Steven Barnes, trading as Bernie Taxi Services, treated the claimant as self-employed from the start, with no written contract, no payslips, and no tax or National Insurance deductions. For the school delivery work, this was a mistake. A written contract reflecting the true nature of the relationship would have clarified expectations and might have avoided the dispute over status. For the taxi work, the arrangement was more typical of a worker relationship, but clearer terms would still have helped.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that tribunals look at the reality of the working relationship, not just labels. Workers in the gig economy or those with mixed roles should consider their status carefully. The settlement means no binding precedent was set, but the preliminary judgment provides useful guidance on how tribunals assess employee versus worker status for different tasks. For anyone in a similar situation, keeping records of how work is organised and paid is crucial.
Similar cases
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.
Housekeeper in shared home not an employee: claim dismissed with costs order
A woman who lived in a man's home and performed housekeeping tasks was found not to be an employee or worker, leading to dismissal of her unfair dismissal claim and a costs order of £11,130.
Independent clerk to school appeals panels was a worker, not an employee — claims out of time
A long-serving independent clerk who worked for Royal Borough of Greenwich for 28 years was found to be a worker rather than an employee, meaning her unfair dismissal claim could not proceed. Her remaining claims for holiday pay and expenses were also dismissed as too late.
Dog walker with set hours found to be employee: unfair dismissal and age discrimination win
A dog walker who worked set hours for five years was found to be an employee, not a self-employed contractor, and awarded over £11,700 for unfair dismissal and age discrimination.