Our client, Megan, was travelling along a cycle lane when she was involved in a collision with another rider alleged to have been undertaking deliveries for Deliveroo. Her case was that the rider drifted into her path, caused the collision, and then left the scene. The rider was alleged to have been using an adapted or electric bike and carrying Deliveroo-branded delivery equipment.
Megan suffered a displaced fracture of her left ulna. She required surgery under general anaesthetic, with a plate and screws inserted into her arm. She was left with a visible scar, discomfort, awareness of the metalwork and reduced dexterity affecting the ring and little fingers of her left hand.
The injury had particular consequences because Megan’s livelihood depended on fine upper limb function as a pianist. She was unable to teach piano for several weeks and could not return to concert piano playing for a number of months. Even after returning, she had to be selective about the duration and complexity of bookings she accepted.
A David v Goliath case
The case raised an important and developing legal issue: when can a large platform business such as Deliveroo be held legally responsible for the actions of a delivery rider who is not formally employed by it?
This was not a straightforward road traffic claim. On one side was an injured cyclist trying to obtain redress after being knocked off her bike. On the other was a major national platform business, robustly defending the claim and taking a hard line on liability from the outset.
Deliveroo denied responsibility before proceedings were issued. It maintained that the rider was not its employee and that it could not be vicariously liable for his actions. It later applied to strike out the claim against it, or alternatively for summary judgment, seeking to bring Megan’s claim against Deliveroo to an end before disclosure, witness evidence or trial.
Shortly before that application was due to be heard, Deliveroo accepted Megan’s Part 36 offer out of time. The court order recorded that Deliveroo’s strike out and summary judgment application was withdrawn, the hearing was vacated, and Deliveroo was to pay Megan’s costs, including the costs of dealing with the application.
Whilst the settlement was not an admission of liability and does not create a legal precedent, the timing is notable. Having taken a firm stance throughout, Deliveroo ultimately chose to accept the offer late rather than proceed with its application. In our view, that at least suggests that the liability position was far from as straightforward as Deliveroo had maintained.
Why this was not a minor injury claim
At first glance, a forearm fracture might be considered a relatively contained orthopaedic injury. However, quantum in personal injury claims is not just about the injury but the person who has been injured and the real-world effect of that injury on their work, independence, hobbies and future.
For Megan, the injury affected precisely the part of her body she relied upon for her career. As a pianist, her ability to play was not simply a recreational activity. It was part of her identity and earning capacity. Her ongoing symptoms and reduced dexterity had to be assessed in that context.
The claim therefore included careful consideration of loss of earnings, future earning risk, the impact on her ability to perform, the possible need for further surgery to remove metalwork, treatment costs, care, therapy and the wider consequences of the injury.
Why the case mattered
Deliveroo’s position was that the rider was an independent contractor carrying out business on his own account. It relied on the terms of its supplier agreement, including provisions allowing riders to choose when to work, whether to accept jobs, and whether to use substitutes. That was the central battleground.
Megan’s case was not that the rider was necessarily an employee in the traditional sense. Her case was that the relationship between the rider and Deliveroo was “akin to employment” for the purposes of vicarious liability. That is a different legal question from employment status and this distinction matters. The fact that a rider is described as self-employed in a contract does not automatically answer the separate question of whether a company may be vicariously liable for negligence committed during the course of its business operations.
Deliveroo’s hard-line approach
Deliveroo sought to dispose of the claim at an early stage. Its application was brought before standard disclosure and before any exchange of witness evidence about how Deliveroo’s rider system actually operated in practice.
We resisted the application. Our position was that the court could not fairly decide the issue simply by looking at selected wording in the supplier agreement.
The evidence we filed on Megan’s behalf identified a number of matters requiring investigation, including the way orders were offered or allocated through the Deliveroo app, GPS tracking and rider location data, equipment and safety standards, insurance arrangements, training and onboarding materials, substitution arrangements, payment systems, and the suspension, deactivation or termination of rider access.
That was a powerful answer to Deliveroo’s attempt to shut the claim down early. A large platform business will naturally want to rely on the contractual label but a claimant is entitled to say “show us how the system actually worked.”
The vicarious liability issue
Vicarious liability is the legal principle by which one party may be responsible for the wrongdoing of another. In ordinary employment cases, the position is familiar: an employer may be liable for negligent acts committed by an employee in the course of employment.
The more difficult question is what happens where the wrongdoer is not an employee but is nevertheless working in a relationship sufficiently close to employment. In modern gig economy cases, control may not look like old-fashioned workplace supervision. It may operate through app access, order allocation, GPS tracking, customer delivery requirements, equipment standards, insurance arrangements, payment systems and termination powers.
Our argument was that these features required proper scrutiny. Deliveroo riders are not peripheral to Deliveroo’s business, they are central to it. The company could not provide food delivery services without riders collecting and delivering orders. That does not automatically establish vicarious liability, but it does make it difficult to say the argument is hopeless before disclosure.
Why this case is important
Where a major platform business builds its commercial model around thousands of riders delivering food to customers, there is a serious question about the extent to which those riders are integrated into the business, controlled by its systems, and carrying out work for its benefit.
For injured road users, that question is not academic. If a delivery rider causes injury and then leaves the scene, is uninsured, or cannot realistically meet a judgment, the injured person may be left trying to recover compensation from an individual with limited means which is precisely why vicarious liability matters.
Why this may also matter to delivery riders
Although this claim was brought by an injured cyclist against Deliveroo, the issues may also be relevant to delivery riders themselves who are exposed to obvious risks on the road.
If a rider is injured while carrying out a delivery, their primary claim may be against a negligent driver or road user. But in some cases there may also be questions about the delivery company’s own systems.
This settlement does not establish that Deliveroo is an employer of its riders, nor does it prove that riders will have direct claims against Deliveroo whenever they are injured. The legal position remains fact-sensitive.
However, the case does show that Deliveroo’s contractual self-employment model is not necessarily the end of the discussion. Where a platform business controls important parts of the working environment through its app, policies, insurance arrangements, equipment standards and access to work, those features may require proper legal scrutiny.
That matters not only to members of the public injured by riders, but potentially also to riders injured while working within those systems.
Sandeep Gill, Partner in our Serious Injury team acted for Megan and said:
“This was a case in which Deliveroo took a firm stance throughout. It denied responsibility, relied heavily on its supplier agreement, and applied to strike out the claim before disclosure. In contrast, we maintained that the court needed to examine the real working relationship before deciding whether Deliveroo could escape liability.
The late acceptance of Megan’s offer meant that the court did not have to determine the issue. Deliveroo’s application was withdrawn, the hearing was vacated, and Megan recovered her costs of dealing with it. The outcome is a meaningful one for Megan, however the underlying legal question remains open.
The wider legal issue remains unresolved. Sooner or later, the courts are likely to have to decide if platform businesses can be vicariously liable for negligent riders working through their apps. Until then, this case shows that claimants should not be deterred by contractual labels or robust early denials. In the right case, the practical reality of the relationship may tell a very different story.”
Megan commented on her case:
“This settlement means a great deal to me, so much that it is genuinely difficult to put into words. What matters most is that the outcome has given me a sense of recognition and closure. I already knew what I had been through and that the crash was not my fault, but having that reflected in the resolution of the claim has lifted a real weight from my shoulders.
I won’t pretend it was easy going up against a company of this size. The process was long and at times felt very impersonal, particularly during the periods when denials of liability arrived with little acknowledgment of what I had actually experienced.
That said, I am genuinely proud that we persevered. I am not sure how long I could have sustained it without the support and belief of my legal team, and I am enormously grateful for that. It made a real difference to have people around me who understood the strength of the case and helped me maintain confidence in it. It is worth standing up for yourself, believing in your case, and seeing it through.”
