High Court judgement in Uber/Delta VAT position, para 58 wrote:
The courts have recognised that the “Uber model” is unique say Veezu. This is
illustrated by the fact that there had been no revision of the employment status of
drivers within the private hire sector generally in spite of the Supreme Court’s decision
in Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5, [2021] 4 All ER 209 to the effect that the drivers
were “workers” under the Employment Rights Act 1996 s.203(3).
But why would there be any revision in the employment status of drivers in the private hire sector generally because of the Uber case in the Supreme Court?
Who's going to apply it to the trade, precisely? Not government or the licensing authorities, nor the private hire operators. Turkeys will ignore Christmas unless they're
forced to acknowledge it.
It's surely up to individual drivers and local groups to take legal action, which isn't an easy course of action. Veezu surely being disingenuous here. Veezu is effectively saying that because Veezu hasn't applied the Supreme Court judgement to its own drivers then that means the judgement doesn't apply
High Court judgement in Uber/Delta VAT position, para 59 wrote:
Veezu says the consequence of this application succeeding would be inevitable
increases in the cost of running a business as a private hire operator, and inevitably the
Claimant is better placed to absorb them than its smaller competitors. It would lead to
fewer smaller private hire operators in the market.
Whenever has it been an argument against VAT liability that compliance would be a greater burden on a particular business compared to a bigger one
And, I mean, *Veezu* arguing that a bigger private hire business is in a better position to absorb the cost of VAT liability?
In para 57 Veezu also argues in terms of stuff like increased admin in terms of VAT compliance and that this would put them at a competitive disadvantage. But I suspect any competition lawyer would argue that it's Uber that's at a competitive disadvantage because it's paying VAT while the others aren't. And, again, it's a bit rich of *Veezu* to say that only Uber were in a position to make the necessary changes to software etc.
In her conclusions, Mrs Justice Foster seems to be accepting that some private hire providers will go out of business as a result of the judgement:
High Court judgement in Uber/Delta VAT position, para 82, Mrs Justice Foster wrote:
This is a strong rationale for the construction advanced by UBL. This aspect of public
protection, including safety, may necessitate a choice by providers of services, and may
require that certain types of service model are no longer capable of operation under the
statute, but that change is not so surprising nor so stark as to condition the approach to
construing the provisions as Sefton suggested, or Veezu and Delta argued. The
statutory purpose of the 1976 Act is established, along with that of the 1998 Act, as
being public protection. Again, I do not accept that a diminution of the PHV market
would constrain a construction of the 1976 Act against what I read as the strong
guidance of Aslam and the ULL case in respect of the 1998 Act.
Similarly, she also seems to be saying that her judgement will hasten the application of drivers being categorised as workers rather than self-employed
High Court judgement in Uber/Delta VAT position, para 83, Mrs Justice Foster wrote:
This Further, as submitted by ADCU, the arguments are not all one way. There is
considerable strength in the view that a properly regulated and remunerated pool of
drivers is a benefit to public safety. It is clear also from The Maxwell Stamp Report
that the agency driver model was deprecated by the Committee. ADCU advanced a
series of compelling arguments to the effect that drivers’ working conditions may well
improve as a result since they would at least in some circumstances, be recognised as
workers with working time, sick pay and minimum wage rights[...]
Basically, the judge is saying that the legislative provisions are reasonably clear and straightforward, and that the economic consequences are not valid considerations:
High Court judgement in Uber/Delta VAT position, para 85, Mrs Justice Foster wrote:
The VAT consequences for those who will wish to change their operating model are in
my judgement irrelevant. They do not condition the reading of the provisions, it could
never be said that a change in the taxation position is an absurd consequence the
draughtsman could never have contemplated would result and did not intend. It,
together with certain postulated economic consequences do not have relevance to the
exercise of statutory construction before the Court. Nor indeed, as was canvassed in
argument, is it wholly impossible that any consequent change by way of increase to
fares because of an element of taxation would necessarily be passed on to the customer.
Login
Register
FAQ
