Uber's principal argument was simple: the drivers could not be workers, because there is no contract between the drivers and the company to provide services to the company and therefore the drivers cannot fall within the definition of worker at s230(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act. There are contracts with Uber BV which grant passengers and drivers the right to access and use the app, but any agreement for transport services is made between Uber London Ltd (ULL) as the driver's agent and the passenger. The employment tribunal and the EAT were wrong to disregard the written contract, which should have been regarded as strong evidence of the intentions of the parties, the nature of the relationship and were consistent with the reality of the situation.