How group litigation works and why 13,000 black cab drivers joined the £340 million Uber claim
- Perry Richardson
- 4 hours ago
- 3 min read
The legal battle between around 13,000 London black cab drivers and Uber is about far more than the £340 million being sought in damages. It also demonstrates how large-scale group litigation allows thousands of individuals with similar claims to combine their cases into a single legal action.
Instead of each driver pursuing separate proceedings, the claim has been brought on behalf of thousands of licensed taxi drivers who argue they suffered financial losses during the same period. The claim also incorporates assigned claims linked to two former private hire operators, Kabbee and Iride, with all parties alleging Uber competed unlawfully in London between 2012 and March 2018.
Group litigation is increasingly used in complex commercial disputes where large numbers of people are said to have suffered similar losses arising from the same alleged conduct. Rather than hearing thousands of individual cases, the court can determine common legal issues once before considering how any findings apply across the wider claimant group.
In the Uber proceedings, the High Court is currently dealing with what is known as a preliminary issue. Before considering whether Uber acted unlawfully, the court is first deciding whether the claims were brought within the applicable limitation period. If Uber succeeds on this point, the entire action could end without the court examining the substantive allegations.
Uber argues the proceedings were issued more than six years after the relevant period ended and are therefore statute barred. Its legal team says the claimants cannot rely on provisions within the Limitation Act 1980 to extend the deadline and has asked the court to dismiss all claims before the case progresses any further.
The claimants take a different view. They argue they could not reasonably have discovered sufficient information to pursue their claims until events surrounding Transport for London’s licensing action against Uber and subsequent court proceedings. That disagreement over timing has become the first major battleground in the case.
Should the claim survive the limitation hearing, the litigation would then move on to the substantive allegations. The drivers claim Uber obtained and operated under its London private hire operator licence unlawfully, enabling it to compete against licensed taxis in a way that caused widespread financial losses. Uber has denied those allegations in full, describing the claims as “misconceived both in law and in fact”.
The size of the claimant group also reflects the wider impact Uber’s arrival had on London’s taxi market. During the period covered by the claim, many licensed taxi drivers argued that increased competition significantly reduced their earnings. Whether those losses were caused by unlawful conduct, however, remains one of the central issues that would only be examined if the case proceeds beyond the current preliminary stage.
Even if the claim clears the limitation hurdle, success is far from guaranteed. The claimants would still need to persuade the court that Uber acted unlawfully, that any unlawful conduct caused drivers to lose business, and that the losses claimed can be accurately quantified across thousands of individual claimants.
For now, the High Court’s focus remains much narrower. The judges are considering whether the proceedings should be allowed to continue at all. That decision could determine whether one of the largest collective claims ever brought by the UK taxi industry reaches a full trial or comes to an end before the main allegations are tested in court.
RELATED NEWS STORY:
