.jpg)
High Court rules London black cab drivers’ £340million claims against Uber are time-barred
Uber has secured a High Court ruling against two lawsuits brought by taxi industry claimants, including nearly 13,300 London black cab drivers. The claims concerned allegations about Uber’s entry into the capital’s private hire market and were valued by the company at about £340 million.
Mr Justice Birt ruled on 19 October that the claims were time-barred. The judgment followed a trial of a preliminary issue at the Commercial Court, held over three days in June and July. The court was asked whether the claimants had discovered, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered, the alleged fraud or deliberate concealment only after June 2018.
The first claim was brought by the black cab drivers. The second was brought by Justin Peters, who had been assigned the rights of action of two companies previously involved in providing private hire services in London. Both sets of claimants sued three Uber group companies: Uber London Limited, Uber B.V. and Uber Technologies, Inc.
The claimants alleged that Uber conspired to cause them loss between mid-2012 and 14 March 2018. Their pleaded allegations included fraudulent misrepresentations and deliberate, dishonest non-disclosure to Transport for London about Uber’s booking and operating system and its use of certain technologies. They argued that, without the alleged conduct, Uber would not have obtained a London private hire vehicle operator’s licence and competed with them for journeys.
Uber denied the allegations in their entirety. The limitation hearing did not decide whether the alleged conspiracy or fraud had taken place. For the purpose of deciding the preliminary issue, the court assumed that the claimants’ pleaded account of the alleged wrongdoing had occurred.
The claims were issued on 2 May and 24 June 2024. The parties accepted that the ordinary six-year limitation period had expired before the claims were filed. The claimants therefore relied on section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980, which can postpone the start of a limitation period in cases involving fraud or deliberate concealment.
The claimants said they could not have discovered the alleged wrongdoing until material connected with Uber’s licensing appeal became public in June 2018. That included Uber’s and TfL’s witness evidence, as well as the Chief Magistrate’s judgment following a rehearing of Uber’s licence application.
The judge found that the claimants did not need to wait for those documents. He concluded that information publicly available before the appeal was enough for the claimants, with reasonable diligence, to discover facts capable of supporting their case. Among the material he considered were a TfL decision letter and press reports in January 2018 about Uber’s use of the “Ripley” tool.
Mr Justice Birt said the drivers could have obtained the information needed to plead their claims “at the latest by February 2018”. He added that they “did not need to take exceptional measures” to find it. The judgment also noted that black cab drivers were generally well informed about Uber’s operations through a range of sources, including trade associations.
The claimants argued that the later licensing appeal material made the difference between being able to plead their case and not. The judge rejected that position, finding that the material did not materially advance the information already available on the question of alleged dishonesty. He said the claims could have been pleaded on the basis of information available by the end of 2017, together with the January 2018 reports.
In the judgment’s conclusion, Mr Justice Birt answered “no” to the question of whether the claimants could only have discovered the alleged fraud or concealment after 25 or 26 June 2018. He found they could have discovered it earlier, “more than 6 years before the first of the claim forms was issued”, and ruled that the claims were time-barred.
The judgment states that if the claims were found to be time-barred, that would lead to their dismissal. The ruling therefore disposes of the claims on limitation grounds, without determining the underlying allegations against Uber.
It has not yet been made public whether an appeal against the decision will be launched.
