Loading More Content
Bolt is a ride-hailing company founded back in 2013 as ‘Taxify’. It was first created by high-school student Markus Villig, who personally recruited the first drivers on the streets of Estonia. It rapidly took off and started operations in London in 2017, but disputes over their licence (as other ride-hailing apps such as Uber have regularly faced) led to their removal in 2018.
They were reintroduced in 2019 and have since become a relatively significant player in the taxi space (while also starting their move into food delivery – in the same manner as Uber Eats).
Taxi-hailing app services have had a difficult run with the law so far. Back in 2021, Uber lost a case in the Supreme Court (the highest legal authority in England and Wales), who declared that Uber drivers were, in fact, workers (not self-employed, as the firm attempted to argue).
Uber attempted to promote their employment setup as one which gave drivers the maximum possible flexibility (e.g. no set hours required for working, no set location, etc). However, at the same time, drivers pointed out that this meant they were denied a number of rights such as holiday/sick pay and the minimum wage.
The Supreme Court sided with the drivers, represented by Bates Wells (a law firm known for its B Corp certification – a ‘socially conscious’ business), and declared that Uber would need to change its payment structure going forwards.
At the time, this decision was widely praised by drivers and trade unions, who said that (in the words of TUC union boss Frances O’Grady) ‘it shows no multi-national company, however big, is above the law’.
At the same time, however, there were ongoing complaints about the fact the Supreme Court had apparently not required Uber to backdate payments for missed earnings in the past which should have been paid. This was alongside the fact that Uber interpreted the ruling to mean they needed to give their workers the full required rights only when they were on an active trip (not during the waiting period between bookings, which is anecdotally often the majority of the time spent during the working day of a driver).
There was also one particularly interesting comment from Uber manager Jamie Heywood at the time:
“Uber is just one part of a larger private-hire industry, so we hope that all other operators will join us in improving the quality of work for these important workers who are an essential part of our everyday lives”
It appears that the time has now come for other similar companies to also face the music. Last week, Bolt lost a legal battle in the Employment Tribunal concerning the status of their own drivers – again, they have been declared to be workers, not self-employed.
There are a few interesting points to note this time. First, a number of the 15,000 total claimants, represented by law firm Leigh Day, are past employees seeking backdated payments for the rights they should have received in the past.
It has been estimated that these payments could now cost Bolt up to £200 million (a pretty sizeable figure for the company in context). Leigh Day estimated that the average payout could be somewhere in the region of £15,000 per driver represented (though this is likely to vary significantly based on specific factors which lawyers and courts will now need to scrutinise in order to ensure accurate payouts).
The decision was arrived at mostly through very close inspection of the contracts signed between drivers and Bolt when they joined the app. The tribunal found that ‘there is nothing in this relationship which demands, or even suggests, agency’ on part of the drivers.
However, the win is significantly limited by the fact that the tribunal’s findings are limited to drivers who are not ‘multi-apping’ (meaning those who are working on numerous taxi-hailing services like Bolt and Uber at the same time). This, in reality, makes up about 90% of all drivers on Bolt, so this is something the unions are concerned about going forwards.
There are a number of points here that the lawyers of the future (both solicitors and barristers) can use in their upcoming applications. This might include applications to vacation schemes, training contracts, or pupillages. Such discussion points could provide great material for both application forms and, later on, at interviews.
First, it is worth noting that most of these cases on workers’ rights in the context of taxi-hailing apps are going to court. While this might seem obvious at first, it is useful to consider why alternative methods of dispute resolution (a topic covered in detail on the SQE, for example) are not working – for example, arbitration or mediation between Bolt and its disgruntled drivers.
Remember that court is often seen as a ‘last resort’ due to the time and money this route takes. This also means that barristers (as those individuals representing clients in such cases once they reach court) are becoming extremely important for these cases, drawing on crucial skills such as advocacy.
It is also worth looking at a number of specific areas of law (both practice areas and overriding themes). In regard to practice area, employment law is clearly very significant here. This is a very profitable sector for a number of law firms. Chambers ranks Magic Circle firms like A&O Shearman and US names like Baker McKenzie as among the best in this field.
Also, try to consider academic areas of law which you are likely to have covered on courses like your LLB or PGDL. Specific rules governing contract law were very important in how these courts and tribunals came to their conclusions (and you can find the specific judgments for these cases online – excellent further reading if you want to go into more detail).
Loading More Content