The UK Government can't decide directly how the law is applied - that is up to the courts. Getting a decision like this is a way for laws to be clarified since

The UK Government can't decide directly how the law is applied - that is up to the courts. Getting a decision like this is a way for laws to be clarified since it sets a precedent around how the law should be interpreted. The "third party" here is a not-for-profit seeking to challenge injustice for the sake of the public good. HMRC failing to apply the law fairly is definitely an issue that affects the public and if it takes a third party like this to represent the people where the state has failed, more power to them! For VAT there are time-limits for corrections. I believe it's 4 years for a mistake and 20 years where there are "deliberate inaccuracies". Both seem like very sensible timelines in relation to business risk. If you're at the edge of the law, you're going to carry a lot more risk so it might be worth following the spirit, not just the letter, of the law. It is fair to say that this is a complex case though. It's unclear whether Uber truly is a platform or a service just as it's unclear whether its "staff" are contractors or employees. I think it's right that these definitions are grappled with by civil society. Where else should disagreements about these definitions take place if not in open court?