I found that odd as well. What exactly is a "technology company"?
This kind of thing isn't going to fly in court. Judges have a long history of following the duck principle: if it looks like a taxi company and acts like a taxi company, it's probably a taxi company. Like any observant human, the judge is going to conclude that Uber is a taxi company and will require that it follow the same laws as other taxi companies. This will be the simplest case on the judge's docket this year.
There's also the salient difference that those takeaways are not being paid as contractors by Just Eat (if anything it's probably the other way around). If they were, Just Eat would be a takeaway. If Just Eat made a piece of software for sale that other companies could use to provide takeaway resale services, it would be a technology company.
The difference is that with UberX, Uber is the service from end to end; they perform every single role of the taxi firm; they tell the drivers where to go, they pay the drivers, etc.