Mr M Z Iqbal v Uber London Ltd and Uber Britannia Ltd: 3201821/2023
JUDGMENT
On hearing the Claimant in person and Mr N Pourghazi, counsel, on behalf of the Respondents, the Tribunal determines that the Claimant’s claims were presented out of time and it has no jurisdiction to consider them. The proceedings as a whole are accordingly dismissed.REASONS
[1]By a claim form date-stamped 19 September 2023, the Claimant brought claims for holiday pay and, based on the national minimum wage provisions, unauthorised deductions from wages. At a preliminary hearing held in public on 5 June 2025 at which the Claimant represented himself and the Respondents were represented by Mr N Pourghazi, counsel, I determined that the Claimant’s claims had been brought out of time and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider them. I gave oral reasons.[2]These reasons are now given in writing pursuant to an oral request made by the Claimant at the hearing.Background
[3]The Claimant’s case formed part of a group of claims in which the Claimants were legally represented by an organisation called London Law Chambers (‘LLC’). They were listed for hearing together at the preliminary hearing on the Respondents’ applications for the claims to be dismissed on time grounds, alternatively struck out as having, on time grounds, no reasonable prospect of success. Prior to the hearing LLC ceased to act for six of the seven Claimants. That left Mr Iqbal.[4]When the matter was called on, Mr Iqbal explained to me that although he had a legal representative on the record, he was attending in person because he was not in a position to pay to be represented at the hearing. He did not suggest that the situation would be any different if the hearing was adjourned to a fresh date. Nor did he ask me to postpone the hearing. I judged that the proper and just course was to proceed.[5]Although a prior direction for the delivery of witness statements had not been complied with, I suggested that it should be possible to do justice to the dispute without that step having been taken. Mr Pourghazi agreed and was content to cross-examine the Claimant briefly ‘on the hoof’. I then heard concise submissions from both sides.[6]It was not in question that the Claimant’s claims related only to the period before 15 March 2021.[7]When I explored with him the reason why it had taken him until September 2023 to put in his claim, he told me that he had been ‘aware’ of time limits for Employment Tribunal claims. It is fair to say that his evidence was not as clear as it might have been but my understanding ultimately was that what he meant was that he was aware of the existence of time limits but not of the detail of how they worked. He also told me that he had approached the question of compensation ‘patiently’. He had wished to achieve a negotiated resolution with Uber, having worked for that organisation since 2014. In addition, he mentioned the compensation scheme which Uber instituted after publication of the Supreme Court’s judgment and that he had not been able to secure a satisfactory outcome through that scheme. Finally, he told me that he had been exceedingly busy, working long, unsocial hours to earn a living and managing, in partnership with his wife, the care of his son who, it appears, has certain special medical needs.[8]In cross-examination, Mr Iqbal very fairly accepted that he had had access to the Internet in and after February 2021 and that it would have been quite possible for him to conduct his own research to find out about his rights and how to enforce them.The law
[9]Claims for unpaid holiday all pay and unauthorised deductions from wages are all subject to a three-month time limit from the date on which payment of the relevant sum fell due. This can be seen from the Working Time Regulations 1998, reg 30 and the Employment Rights Act 1996, s23. The primary time limit may be replaced where the Tribunal is satisfied that it had not been ‘reasonably practicable’ to meet it (see e.g. ERA, s23(4)). In that event, the Tribunal has power to substitute ‘such further period as [it] considers reasonable.[10]As the case-law shows, the statutory test is a harsh one. The ‘not reasonably practicable’ formulation has been interpreted as requiring the employee or worker to demonstrate that it ‘not been reasonably feasible’ to abide by the primary, three-month limit (see e.g. Palmer v Southend-on-Sea BC [1984] ICR 372 CA). In their reported decisions, the higher courts have frequently stressed the policy which underlies the jurisdictional time limits, namely to ensure, so far as possible, that disputes in the workplace are rapidly litigated (if they must be litigated at all).Conclusions
[11]I must start by acknowledging a number of points in the Claimant’s favour. In the first place, I must begin from the position that he has a good claim, subject to quantification. On the ruling of the Supreme Court, he was entitled to holiday pay and the national minimum wage and it appears to be undisputed that the former, at least, was never paid to him.[12]Second, he is entitled to be treated as a dedicated and loyal Uber driver. His qualities have not been questioned by the organisation. Indeed, it classified him as a ‘Diamond Driver’.[13]Third, he impressed me as a sincere and entirely straightforward witness.[14]Fourth, I unhesitatingly accept everything he told me with feeling about the punishing routine which he has to maintain over many years to support his family. He has, and is entitled to, the strong sympathy of the Tribunal.[15]However, making every allowance for these factors, I am driven to reject the Claimant’s argument that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider his claims. The law is entirely against him. On his own case, he cannot show that it was ‘not reasonably practicable’ to meet the primary, three-month time limit. He was put on inquiry as to his rights and there was no obstacle to him taking suitable steps to protect them in early 2021. Moreover, even if I had felt able to say that he somehow satisfied the first part of the test, he would inevitably have failed on the second limb. On any conceivable view, a ‘further period’ of over two years and four months was anything but ‘reasonable’. He knew or ought to have known that the Uber compensation scheme was not going to yield a solution to his problem. He accepted that he was aware that others were taking legal action to protect their positions. He did not follow their lead. Rather, he chose to be ‘patient’. That is not a reasonable course to take. Legal rights must be enforced or they will be lost. Regrettably, he forfeited his chance to join the many others who took timely action and secured compensation accordingly.