A critical analysis on the legal principles of the UK UBER judgement; what would the effect be had this judgement been delivered in Malta?

Abstract

The ‘UBER’ judgement has proved to be a landmark judgement, underlining the arrangement of several defects within the definition of self-employment as spelled by the UK Employment Tribunal. This study shall serve as a solid-based assembly, pointing out variations within local legislation and undertaking the repacking of worker rights for the twenty-first century. A conductive report showing the despairing need for an acuter outlook on the protection of employees’ rights, this ruling shows the imminent risk of having standard personnel improperly classified as ‘self-employed’. The leading goal behind this research question is to scrutinize and create a clearer standpoint on who the ‘self-employed’ really are by underlining precarious notions arising out of this judgement in assessment of the Maltese legal system. What are the lessons learned from UBER? What are the implications arising out of this landmark verdict? Has Malta anticipated such an employment incidental issue? How can local law be amended to cater for new forms of employment? What are the implications of Subsidiary Legislation 452.108 of the Laws of Malta? Through tackling these research questions, this study will assist in the attentiveness of local errors and supply new knowledge and scenarios to the holistic outlook of self-employment in Malta; particularly through the analysis of Maltese legislation and case law vis-à-vis Malta’s prosperous/condescending steps in light of this prominent judgement.