The present article offers an analysis of some key aspects of the UK Supreme Court (SC) Deliveroo judgment. After a short description of some of the facts and findings of the case, the article argues that the Supreme Court may have actually misconstrued the personal scope of application of Article 11 ECHR and, like the other domestic jurisdictions before, misapplied the law (and the concept of ‘employment relationship’ deployed by the ECtHR) to the facts of this case. While the SC judgment did not expressly elaborate on the domestic ‘worker’ definition contained in s. 296 TULRCA 1992, the article explores the extent to which the Deliveroo saga has incorrectly construed this concept, embracing a very narrow concept of ‘personal work’ that neither the statutory wording itself nor the context in which it was applied arguably support. Finally, the concluding section of this article offers an alternative approach to the legal construction and legal regulation of ‘personal work’, one that is already emerging in other jurisdictions and that should underpin any future reform of the personal scope of application of UK, but also EU labour law - a reform, the article concludes, that is long overdue.

中文翻译：

---

不交付：英国最高法院在 Deliveroo 案中的英国“工人”概念 - IWGB v CAC 和另一个 [2023] UKSC 43

本文对英国最高法院 (SC) Deliveroo 判决的一些关键方面进行了分析。在简要描述了本案的一些事实和调查结果后，文章认为，最高法院实际上可能误解了《欧洲人权公约》第 11 条的个人适用范围，并且像之前其他国内司法管辖区一样，误用了法律（以及欧洲人权法院采用的“雇佣关系”概念）与本案事实相符。虽然SC的判决没有明确阐述第s条中包含的国内“工人”的定义。 296 TULRCA 1992，文章探讨了 Deliveroo 传奇在多大程度上错误地解释了这一概念，包含了一个非常狭隘的“个人工作”概念，无论是法定措辞本身还是其应用的上下文都无法支持这一概念。最后，本文的结论部分为“个人工作”的法律构建和法律监管提供了另一种方法，这种方法已经在其他司法管辖区出现，并且应该为英国未来个人适用范围的任何改革奠定基础，但是文章的结论是，欧盟劳动法也是一项早就该进行的改革。