Download this Paper Open PDF in Browser

Uber Fraud, Mutuality and the Taylor Review

Industrial Law Journal, Forthcoming

8 Pages Posted: 16 Aug 2017 Last revised: 28 Sep 2017

Ewan McGaughey

King's College London - School of Law

Date Written: August 14, 2017

Abstract

The Taylor Review (July 2017) was a squandered opportunity to address the problems of employment rights and tax evasion in today’s economy. This note summarises the four main groups of Taylor’s recommendations. It explains why relabelling employment statuses, more secondary legislation, cutting holiday pay, and ‘softening’ labour rights will solve little. It explains why a test for employment status highlighted by Taylor - ‘mutuality of obligation’ - has not formed part of binding UK Supreme Court jurisprudence since Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher. It then discusses what the Taylor Review did not: gig economy fraud, and ensuring corporations do not evade rights and tax. In Aslam v Uber BV [2017] IRLR 4, [96] the Employment Tribunal found Uber provided an ‘excellent example of... “armies of lawyers” contriving documents in their clients’ interests which simply misrepresent the true rights and obligations on both sides’. ‘Contriving’ to ‘misrepresent’ something means at least civil fraud. Uber, and firms like it, are objectively dishonest by the standards of ordinary honest people. This allows exemplary damages in actions for breach of rights.

Keywords: Uber, Fraud, Taylor, Dishonesty, Mutuality of Obligation, Bargaining Power, Universal Declaration, Labour, Employment, Rights

JEL Classification: K12, K31, K21, K34, K42

Suggested Citation

McGaughey, Ewan, Uber Fraud, Mutuality and the Taylor Review (August 14, 2017). Industrial Law Journal, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3018516

Ewan McGaughey (Contact Author)

King's College London - School of Law ( email )

Somerset House East Wing
Strand
London, WC2R 2LS
United Kingdom

Paper statistics

Downloads
105
Rank
218,386
Abstract Views
501