Tribunal to decide Addison Lee compensation

4 Mar 2026News

An employment tribunal is assessing total compensation for over 900 drivers claiming worker status amid contrasting figures from various parties involved in the case

The tribunal heard both sides during a two-week hearing in February 2026, which included testimonies from four Addison Lee representatives and the three lead claimants. While Addison Lee claims the lead claimants should receive between approximately £500 and £4,000, Leigh Day argues that they are owed between £35,000 and £65,000 plus interest, illustrating a stark disparity in compensation expectations.

Key issues under consideration include the impact of extended breaks taken during the COVID pandemic on claim periods, how holiday pay should be calculated, and the proper method of calculating drivers’ work-related expenses. Another critical aspect is whether the time drivers spent with their status set to ‘empty’ should be included in their work-time calculations for minimum wage entitlements.

This tribunal session follows a ruling made in January 2025, where it was established that Addison Lee drivers are indeed entitled to workers’ rights like holiday pay and the national minimum wage. This came after years of legal challenges dating back to 2017, significantly influenced by a 2021 Supreme Court ruling in favour of Uber drivers. The drivers maintain that they must be fully compensated for unlawful deductions resulting from unpaid holiday pay and failures to comply with minimum wage requirements.

Liana Wood, an employment solicitor at Leigh Day representing the drivers, expressed her concerns, stating that "our clients have already established that they are workers and were denied fundamental employment rights for many years." She emphasised the importance of ensuring compensation reflects the reality of the work and losses incurred, noting the considerable service drivers have provided to Addison Lee.

As judgment from the tribunal emerges in the coming months, the case continues to garner attention, highlighting the ongoing need for clarity and justice within the gig economy.

Legal News desk contact: editorial@solicitorsjournal.com

Latest Articles

Challenging solicitors’ bills: lessons from Biggar v Howard Kennedy

A recent SCCO ruling clarifies when clients can challenge solicitors’ bills and the threshold for “special circumstances”

CLC launches fast-track route for graduates

The Council for Licensed Conveyancers has introduced a streamlined qualification path for law graduates interested in conveyancing and probate careers

Kingdom of Spain v Infrastructure Services Luxembourg and Republic of Zimbabwe v Border Timbers: sovereign immunity and ICSID award enforcement

A waiver of adjudicative immunity from the mere act of ratifying the ICSID Convention

Siniakovich v Hassan-Soudey: unpaid court fees and the limitation period

An action is "brought" when the claim form is received by the court, even where the fee paid is incorrect.

Ansari v Chief Constable of North Wales Police: when does AF (No. 3) disclosure apply to phone seizures?

Schedule 7 stops, closed material proceedings and the limits of the AF (No. 3) disclosure standard

Attersley v UK Insurance: fixed costs apply to late Part 36 acceptance in ex-Protocol claims

Late acceptance of a Part 36 offer in an ex-Protocol claim does not entitle a claimant to standard basis costs, even where the case has since been allocated to the multi-track.

Barot v Secretary of State for the Home Department: time limits and the limits of merits in judicial review extensions

Extension of time refused where no good reason shown; underlying merits insufficient to rescue out-of-time applications.

Purani Swami Dharmanandan Dasji v Bhudia & Ors: High Court approves charity scheme for Swaminarayan temple

A new constitution for a £10 million Hindu charity, contested governance, and the limits of a founder's authority.

Townsend v Epsom and St Helier: NHS trusts cannot unilaterally withhold life-sustaining treatment on clinical grounds

Court of Appeal holds that all treatment decisions for incapacitated adults require a best interests analysis — there is no clinical carve-out.

Attorney General v Messi: EAT grants indefinite restriction of proceedings order against serial employment claimant

EAT imposes indefinite bar on claimant with over 50 unsuccessful employment tribunal claims since 2017.

BY v GC: costs orders, litigation conduct and the limits of r28.3

Knowingly false Form E disclosure warrants a costs penalty even where an SJE was already agreed.

Wiltshire Council v Secretary of State: fire damage cannot invalidate a lawful planning decision

A fire destroying a listed hangar eight days after a planning inspector's decision does not retrospectively render that decision unlawful.

CHK v Secretary of State for the Home Department: habeas corpus, immigration bail and the limits of liberty

Court of Appeal confirms that immigration bail conditions alone cannot ground a habeas corpus application.

VMD publishes first inspections report

The Veterinary Medicines Directorate's report informs on compliance issues and enforcement actions affecting animal health businesses

SJ Interview: Ben Aram

Ben Aram is UK Managing Partner at Kennedys and co-head of its Corporate & Commercial division. A solicitor specialising in international arbitration and commercial litigation, he has led the expansion of the firm’s UK corporate practice and helped launch its global ESG group. In this interview, he reflects on law-firm leadership, scaling practices, partnership governance, and the skills lawyers need in a changing market.

Power Shifts, Responsibility Holds

From AI liability and freezing injunctions to private equity governance and regulatory reform, this issue traces a legal system adapting to new pressures while keeping accountability firmly human.