The Court of Appeal has ruled by majority that Uber drivers are workers and not self-employed.

The proceedings which gave rise to the appeals were brought by Uber drivers against companies in the Uber group claiming holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998 and under-payments of “wages” by reference to the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999. One of the claimants also claimed that he has been subjected to a detriment for being a whistleblower contrary to Part V of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in GB. The appeal was concerned only with Uber drivers in London but, as with many gig economy cases, it has ramifications for many potentially miscategorised workers, denied holiday pay and other employment rights because they are labelled self-employed contractors. There are, of course, other benefits to being self-empoyed.

Uber argued it acts only as an intermediary, providing booking and payment services, and the drivers drive the passengers as independent contractors. The majority of the Court of Appeal held that
the terms do not reflect the practical reality of the relationships and can therefore be disregarded in accordance with the principle established in an earlier Supreme Court decision called Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41.

The dissenting member of the Court, Lord Justice Underhill, felt that the contracts between Uber and the drivers reflected reality in the taxi business and, therefore, Autoclenz should not be applied:

"...it still seems to me that the relationship argued for by Uber is neither unrealistic nor artificial. On the contrary, it is in accordance with a well-recognised model for relationships in the private hire car business... That being so, Autoclenz gives no warrant for disregarding the terms of the Agreement. Autoclenz is an important tool in tribunals’ armoury because it enables them to look to the reality of a relationship rather than a false characterisation imposed by the employer. But the premise is that the characterisation is indeed false... Autoclenz does not permit the re-writing of agreements only because they are disadvantageous."

Subject to any appeal to the Supreme Court (leave for which has been granted), the claims ought to go back to the employment tribunal for assessment of individual claims.
https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/court-of-appeal-judgment-uber-v-aslam-others/