“The UK has seen a dramatic growth in precarious work over recent decades, including the amorphous category of ‘zero-hours contracts’ which are often regarded as a paradigm example of an exploitative and insecure form of work. Although somewhat overshadowed by litigation and debates surrounding the gig-economy, the regulation of zero hours work continues to be a pressing issue in the UK, and important questions as to the rights that are, and should be, available to individuals with these contracts remain unanswered. This article sets out the detrimental effects that zero hours working arrangements have in the absence of adequate regulatory safeguards and argues that the orthodox treatment of zero hours contracts under English law, and the standard tools of employment law, fail to protect against these economic and social harms. The article then assesses the extent to which recent legislative and common law developments improve the position of zero hours workers, and whether existing legislation might be creatively applied to better protect these individuals. While current statutory frameworks, including reforms and legislation aimed at regulating atypical work, fall short of adequately protecting zero hours workers, the ‘purposive approach’ to employment status developed by the Supreme Court in Uber makes it considerably easier for zero hours contracts to be brought within the protective scope of employment law. It is argued that under this approach many individuals with supposedly ‘zero hours’ working arrangements should in fact now be regarded as employees with overarching contracts of employment. Despite the significance of this, however, it is ultimately concluded that further statutory intervention is necessary to effectively regulate zero hours work in the UK.”