There are two very important, or rather interesting judgements in the recent past, both counter-intutive, which can be path breaking. Both of them came from Britain. The first one raises a pertinent query – I am what I am because of my school. Had my school been better, I would have been better. To redress this, I will file a case against my school. The second one pits traditional way of thought with the ever changing world – is Uber a service provider or an employer?

The first case was filed by Faiz Siddiqui against the University of Oxford. His main contention was that the course he was taught was subpar and didn’t cover the syllabus properly. Issues were, there was no sufficient staff, syllabus was not covered properly and his health situation, even though, notified, was not seriously considered. Because of this, his career in law and accountacy took a serious hit. He had regular correspondence with the college for redressal but he was not satisified with the judgement. Well, the University, naturally, held the charges as frivolous. But, the judge didn’t think so and held that the case should be considered for trial.

The second one was filed by Y Aslam, J Farrar and Others against Uber in the Employment Tribunal. Uber’s contention is that it is a voluntary service which people subscribe to and not a employer. The judge didn’t think so. The salient points are below.


Based on these arguments, the judge contended that Uber is an employer and hence should satisfy all the criteria of an employer.