In observations accompanying the judgment, Mr Justice Murray said it must be stated that the finding that the drivers were employees did not, and cannot, bind any driver who may wish to contend that, in fact, they were not an employee for this or any other purpose.
The question of whether drivers have continuous service for the purpose of other legislation, and in particular employment rights legislation, cannot be decided here, he said.
Seems a bit wishy washy. Revenue rules are generally somewhat more defined i.e. you're either an employee (by reference to tests of control, etc) or you're not. One can only assume that some drivers fall into one category and others into the other. However, I guess most of us will welcome the option to remain self-(un)employed should similar be applied to the likes of Lynk, Free Now, Bolt, Uber, etc... particularly, but not exclusively, the odd-balls that only spend money because it's "tax deductible".
Similarly, one would question why it would apply to taxation law exclusively. In effect that's merely restricting qualifying expenditure attributable in computing the drivers' tax liability with no compensation in the form of benefits available to regular employees under employment legislation e.g. sick pay, paid holidays, etc...
One can't help wondering if the judiciary are merely prompting Revenue to improve effective taxation of the gig economy, perhaps through introduction of a retention taxation regime.... answering the astute question posed within the op i.e. will Delivery kangaroo etc have to start deducting income tax at source.
