On 17 November 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that four Uber drivers were employees while logged into the Uber app. This decision concludes a long-running dispute regarding the worker status of these drivers, which the parties commenced in 2021.

The decision reaffirms the legal tests for determining whether a worker is an employee, set by the Supreme Court in 2005.

The Supreme Court found that:

• The ‘real nature’ of the relationship between the company and the worker trumps any contractual labels of employment status if those labels do not reflect the reality of the situation.
• Uber’s model exercised significant control over these four drivers through fare setting, disciplinary action, the ratings system, and protocols when logged into the app.
• The drivers were integrated into Uber’s business, rather than running their own businesses as self-employed workers or independent contractors.

The Supreme Court noted that there are materially different tax consequences depending on whether a person is treated as a contractor or as an employee. It noted, for example, that the four drivers had presumably filed their tax returns on the basis that they were contractors, “including deducting from their assessable income the vehicle running costs related to earning their income from Uber.” The Court contrasted this with the position of employees, who are not entitled to deduct employment-related expenditure. While the Court was not asked to determine the tax position, its comments indicate a likely mismatch between how tax has historically been returned on the basis that the drivers were contractors and how it ought to have been treated, given the finding that they are employees.

Aside from tax, the decision also has significant wider implications for affected companies, such as potential claims for employee minimum entitlements, including minimum wage and paid leave.

The decision raises issues on the application of minimum entitlements for employees, when workers can switch between multiple platforms at any given time, making minimum rights difficult (or impossible) to manage.

The impact this decision has on digital platforms and gig economy workers is an area requiring close attention. It raises further questions on what weight should be placed on the flexibility of workers to choose their hours of work and to work for competitors, on what ‘working time’ is for app-based work, how much “control” companies have over app-based workers, and how multiple platform entities may be jointly liable for the same worker.

In the meantime, we recommend that clients review any relationships they have with digital platform-based workers in accordance with the decision, especially by considering the real nature of the relationship.

We recommend that you seek advice from one of our experts if you believe this decision may affect you.