Search

How can we help?

Icon

Employment Status: Courier’s ability to ‘release’ job was not an automatic right to substitute

In Stuart Delivery Ltd v Augustine 2019, the EAT upheld the employment tribunal’s findings that a delivery courier was a ‘worker’ under S.230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The Claimant was a delivery courier who undertook fixed time slots for the Respondent. During the fixed slot, the Claimant was confined to his agreed operation zone and undertook deliveries that were offered to him via an app for an agreed hourly wage. He could not hold himself out as being available to other delivery companies during this time.

The Claimant was able to release the slot assigned to him to be picked up by other couriers in the area via SD Ltd’s app. However, if no other courier accepted, then the Claimant was duty bound to complete his allocated deliveries.

SD Ltd argued that the Claimant was self-employed as the ability to release his slot to other couriers amounted to a right to substitute. However, the tribunal considered that this was not the character of a substitution clause that would deny him ‘worker’ status.

SD Ltd appealed the decision but the EAT upheld the tribunal’s findings.

The EAT upheld the employment tribunal’s findings that a delivery courier was a ‘worker’ under S.230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The EAT agreed that the tribunal had correctly found that the Claimant could only be released from his obligation to perform the deliveries himself if another courier signed up to his slot. This meant he had no control over whether the delivery would be picked up or by whom if released.

This therefore did not amount to a ‘right’ of substitution and so did not undermine the requirement for personal service, under s230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Link to transcript: https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/stuart-delivery-ltd-v-mr-warren-augustine-ukeat-0219-18-ba

Employment status has a significant impact on your obligations as an employer. With the upcoming changes to the IR35 rules, determining the employment status of your workforce is paramount. To speak to one of our experts about employment status click here.

Disclaimer
This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

Author profile

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

Pub
  • 09 July 2026
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

The Arbitration Act 2025 – Factsheet

This factsheet outlines the major reforms and key developments introduced by the Arbitration Act 2025, including updates on summary disposal, jurisdictional challenges, emergency arbitrators, arbitrator disclosure duties, and governing law in arbitration proceedings.

art
  • 09 July 2026
  • Immigration

Right to Work Checks are changing from 1 October 2026: Is your business ready?

The Home Office’s new rules, effective 1 October 2026, will overhaul right to work checks and raise the risk of civil penalties for UK businesses.

art
  • 08 July 2026
  • Privacy and Data Protection

ICO prosecutes employee under the Data Protection Act for forwarding client data to his personal email address

The issue of employees taking confidential business information or personal data when moving to a new employer remains a significant concern for businesses.

Pub
  • 07 July 2026
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

Accelerating arbitration: Expedited procedures and key changes in the new ICC Rules – Episode 2

In episode 2, Jack Hobbs (Clarkslegal) and Christopher Howitt (Three Stone) explore how the latest expedited and highly expedited procedures under the ICC Arbitration Rules 2026 are transforming the landscape of dispute resolution.

art
  • 07 July 2026
  • Employment

6 month unfair dismissal rights: What employers need to know

Under the new Employment Rights Act 2025 the minimum period of service required to qualify to bring a statutory claim for unfair dismissal has been reduced from 2 full years to 6 months from 1 January 2027 onwards.  

art
  • 02 July 2026
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

Litigation and Artificial Intelligence: Where are we now?

In the recent case of Cork and another v Smith, the High Court publicly admonished a law firm and two of its solicitors after they had produced and submitted two AI-generated letters to the court containing misleading and false information in relation to a block transfer application made under Rule 12.37 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016.