A former Uber driver from High Wycombe who has spent six years battling the taxi giant over workers' rights is celebrating an emphatic victory today. 

Supreme Court justices have ruled against Uber operating companies and concluded that drivers should be classed as workers, not independent third-party contractors.

The case had been bought against Uber by Yaseen Aslam, a former Uber driver from High Wycombe and president of the App Drivers and Couriers Union, and colleague James Farrar. 

ALSO READ: Uber driver in landmark tribunal ruling feels 'blessed' at support

Seven justices delivered a ruling on the latest round of a long-running fight between Uber operating companies and drivers on Friday morning.

Lawyers said the ruling means that drivers will be entitled to basic rights, such as paid holidays, and will have implications for others working in the gig economy.

Uber operating companies had appealed to the Supreme Court after losing three earlier rounds of the fight.

Bucks Free Press: Yaseen AslamYaseen Aslam

Mr Aslam said: "I am overjoyed and greatly relieved by this decision which will bring relief to so many workers in the gig economy who so desperately need it.

"During the six years of these proceedings, we have watched the government commission and then shelve a review of the gig economy yet do nothing to help us.

"I hope in future the government will choose to carry out its duty to enforce the law and protect the most vulnerable from exploitation."

ALSO READ: IN THE DOCK: Weekly round-up of hearings at Wycombe Magistrates' Court

Lawyers said the ruling will have implications for the gig economy.

An employment tribunal ruled in 2016 that Uber drivers were workers, and were entitled to workers’ rights.

That ruling was upheld by an employment appeal tribunal, and by Court of Appeal judges.

Lawyers representing Uber operating companies told Supreme Court justices that the employment tribunal ruling was wrong.

They said drivers did not “undertake to work” for Uber but were “independent, third party contractors”.

But lawyers representing drivers said the tribunal was entitled to conclude that drivers were working.