In the recent case of Khan v Premier Private Hire Taxi [2007], the applicant worked as a private hire taxi driver for the employer. He issued a claim form to the employment tribunal which stated the following:”The company was not paying me, I was taking fare from customer and paying commission to the company. Like an agent transacting business for another”.The chairman of the employment tribunal considered the claim form and decided that he had no jurisdiction to hear the case because the relevant employment relationship had not been established. He therefore rejected the claim. Upon this rejection, the applicant appealed.The appeal was allowed:– Considering the circumstances, it was held that the chairman had erred in rejecting the claim. The material adduced by the applicant on the nature of the employment relationship had to be taken at face value. Using that approach, where aspects common to an employment relationship had existed, for example the situation which could be described as a ‘working relationship’, the tribunal certainly had jurisdiction to hear the claim.- The nature of the employment relationship in the instant case was ripe for examination.- The facts constituting such a relationship should have been considered by the tribunal.- It was held that the applicant would be ordered to provide the tribunal with further information setting out the scope of his employment relationship in order for his claim to proceed.If you require further information please contact us at [email protected]© RT COOPERS, 2007. This Briefing Note does not provide a comprehensive or complete statement of the law relating to the issues discussed nor does it constitute legal advice. It is intended only to highlight general issues. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to particular circumstances.