Gillani v Veezu and Others
Syed Asmin Raza Gillani and others v Veezu Ltd and others [2025] EAT 97
Facts
The case involves 509 private hire car drivers (Appellants/Claimants) who brought claims against Veezu Limited and other "Veezu" companies (Respondents) for holiday pay, failure to pay the national minimum wage, and failure to provide written statements of particulars of employment. These claims are contingent on the claimants being classified as "workers" or "agency workers" under relevant legislation.
A preliminary issues hearing was scheduled for June/July 2026 to determine the worker status of eight lead claimants. As part of case management, Employment Judge Jenkins issued an order (the "contested order") requiring all 509 claimants to provide detailed particulars, including:
Dates and times they were logged onto any other apps for driving, delivery, or related private hire/courier services ("multi-apping").
Dates on which they made themselves available to other businesses and/or clients for similar services.
The judge stated that this information was relevant to the "overall assessment of employment status" and would also help the respondents select lead claimants.
The claimants appealed this order, arguing it was irrational, perverse, oppressive, and disproportionate. They contended it would be very expensive and burdensome to comply with, potentially requiring numerous data subject access requests (DSARs) from unwilling third parties for all claimants. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) sift judge also expressed concern about the order's width. Although the Employment Judge later tried to clarify his reasoning, he acknowledged an "inconsistency" regarding the timetable for selecting lead claimants versus the deadline for providing the information.
Held
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the appeal, finding that the Employment Judge had made errors of law in making the contested order. The EAT held:
The contested order was outside the generous ambit within which reasonable disagreement is possible, irrational, and perverse.
The judge had struck a proportionality balance on a wrong basis or due to a misunderstanding of the timetable and the case management gain the order would deliver.
The order was unlawful on its own terms, too wide, oppressive, and disproportionate, as it required detailed, time-unlimited information from all claimants, potentially necessitating coercive measures against unwilling third parties and likely leading to compliance issues.
The EAT concluded that it had the power under section 35(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 to substitute its own case management decision for that of the judge below, rather than remitting the matter. It explicitly stated that the dicta to the contrary effect in Jafri and Kuznetsov (which suggested remission was generally required unless parties consented or there was only one possible outcome) were obiter and that substituting the decision would further the overriding objective by avoiding delay and increasing costs.
The EAT therefore exercised its power to replace the original order with a new, more proportionate one, requiring:
The pool of 12 potential lead claimants to provide the particulars sought in full.
A randomly selected sample of 125 claimants to answer a questionnaire verified by a statement of truth, giving their best estimate of the extent and frequency of their "multi-apping".
In both cases, the information requirement is limited to a period starting two years before the date of the claim and ending on the questionnaire submission date.
Comment
This judgment provides key insights into the practical application of proportionality in employment tribunal litigation, particularly in large-scale multi-claimant cases.
Relevance of "Multi-apping": The case underscores that evidence of "multi-apping" is highly relevant to determining worker status, especially in the evolving landscape of the gig economy following Uber BV v. Aslam. The EAT acknowledged its importance for the "overall picture" of employment status.
Proportionality as an Overriding Principle: The decision strongly reiterates that case management orders, even when seeking relevant information, must be proportionate to the benefit gained and not impose an oppressive burden on parties. The EAT found the original order to be disproportionate because it was too wide and onerous for all 509 claimants, potentially requiring significant and costly efforts to obtain data from third parties. The EAT also criticized the Employment Judge's "unconvincing" and "breezy conclusion" regarding the ease of obtaining the information.
EAT's Active Case Management Role: A particularly significant aspect is the EAT's decision to substitute its own order rather than remitting the case back to the Employment Tribunal. This reflects a robust interpretation of the EAT's powers under section 35(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, indicating a judicial willingness to take direct action to manage complex litigation efficiently. This approach is explicitly justified by the overriding objective to save costs and avoid delay, even if it means navigating what might appear to be constraints from higher court authority regarding remitting matters. The judgment also implicitly critiques a judge's "advocacy in defence of his decision" when asked to provide further reasons, suggesting a need for impartiality even in supplementary explanations.
Balanced Solution: The substituted order demonstrates a practical and balanced approach to obtaining necessary information. By limiting the full detailed disclosure to a small pool of lead claimants and requesting a questionnaire-based estimate from a larger, randomly selected sample, the EAT reduces the burden on hundreds of claimants while still ensuring that sufficient information is available to the respondents for the preliminary issues hearing. The time limitation for the information also adds to the proportionality. This outcome highlights a focus on achieving justice efficiently in complex multi-party litigation.
