One of the positives of the current Uber situation is that I'm going back through old judgements. I'd forgotten how CONSTANTLY they get sassed for bullshitting by British judges. Makes me proud.
(This one is from the December 2018 worker's rights Court of Appeal judgement)
(This one is from the December 2018 worker's rights Court of Appeal judgement)
I need to use "There is a high degree of fiction..." in meetings more. 😂😂😂
See also, the initial Tribunal ruling in October 2016, in which Uber's legal team kept trying to argue things that were blatantly contradicted by Uber's own PR.
The whole thing reads like an extended British version of the 'Magic Grits' scene from My Cousin Vinny. It's glorious
The whole thing reads like an extended British version of the 'Magic Grits' scene from My Cousin Vinny. It's glorious
The judge has to come up with about fifteen different ways to say "I HAVE EYES. MS BERTRAM. EYES."
Things you NEVER want a judge to write about your argument:
"To our considerable surprise..."
Crack team of lawyers at Uber. Crack. Team.
"To our considerable surprise..."
Crack team of lawyers at Uber. Crack. Team.
See also from the original Uber legal ruling:
"We have been struck by the remarkable lengths..."
Which is the British judicial version of shouting BULLSHIT and pretending you were coughing.
"We have been struck by the remarkable lengths..."
Which is the British judicial version of shouting BULLSHIT and pretending you were coughing.
I'll end with my ALL TIME favourite judicial burn (original Uber judgement). A perfect example of the Duck Test in English law
If you carry passengers like a cab firm, hire drivers like a cab firm, have a cab licence and boast about being a cab firm.
You're a fucking cab firm
If you carry passengers like a cab firm, hire drivers like a cab firm, have a cab licence and boast about being a cab firm.
You're a fucking cab firm
