One interesting aspect of the UBER judgment is the way it confronts, head on, the practice of trying to use creative contract drafting to deny those who would otherwise be workers their statutory rights /1

There cannot be many Employment Lawyers who have not at some point been asked to review clauses that have implied (and sometimes explicit) purpose of denying someone employee or worker status /2

It has produced the perverse consequence that the clearer the definition of, say, "worker" is made, the easier it is to avoid that status by careful drafting. /3

If, for instance, the law says a worker has to be under an obligation to do the work themselves, the company forces upon the worker a right to send a substitute. It's a right that the worker hasn't asked for. It's the company that insists on it. /4

There are a number of different ways you could tackle that problem:
(1) You can outlaw clauses the purpose of which is to avoid the worker getting the benefit of statutory protections;

/5

(2) You can empower the tribunal to look past the strict terms and to focus on the "reality" of the relationship;
(3) You can keep the test "fuzzy" allowing tribunals to reach decisions on the particular facts which are unchallengeable; and
(4) You can do all of the above /end

If you look at @JeremiasPrassl's TL you'll find an interesting summary of the approach that the SC took here.