.jpg)
Uber’s new Fife private hire booking office licence faces court challenge after hundreds of objections rejected
A legal challenge has been launched against Fife Council’s decision to grant Uber a booking office licence after hundreds of objections were rejected at a licensing hearing in September.
A writ served on 20 October asks Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court to overturn the council’s decision and refer the application back for reconsideration, with objections from local residents and taxi trade representatives taken into account.
The appeal has been brought by James Glen, Tahir Ali and Tariq Ali, who argue that the local authority made errors of law, relied on incorrect material facts, acted unreasonably in exercising its discretion and failed to follow the principles of natural justice.
The dispute centres on an application submitted by Uber Scot Limited on 23 January 2026 for a booking office licence at Rosyth Business Centre.
When the application reached Fife Council’s Regulation and Licensing Committee on 22 September, 25 objectors had been invited to address councillors. However, the hearing took a different direction when Uber’s solicitor challenged the validity of the objections.
Following legal advice and a lengthy recess, the committee ruled that the objections could not be accepted. The objectors were consequently prevented from presenting their arguments, and the booking office licence was subsequently granted under delegated powers.
The new legal proceedings challenge the way the objections were handled rather than simply seeking to prevent Uber from operating in Fife.
According to the appellants, the council incorrectly treated all objections as unsigned despite two of those bringing the appeal maintaining that they had submitted signed letters by post.
They argue that this raises questions about the factual basis upon which councillors were advised to disregard the representations.
A second element of the appeal concerns whether objectors were given a fair opportunity to respond to the challenge raised by Uber’s legal representative.
The appellants claim those attending the committee meeting should have been allowed to address the validity of their submissions before a decision was made to exclude them.
They also argue that councillors should have considered whether any missing signatures could have been corrected using the council’s powers to accept late objections.
The third argument concerns electronic signatures and whether typed names attached to objections submitted by email met the applicable legal requirements.
The writ cites electronic communications legislation and case law in support of the argument that electronically signed objections should have been accepted.
It also refers to correspondence in which a council licensing officer had expressly accepted an objector’s digital signature before the hearing.
These arguments remain allegations advanced by the appellants. The court has not yet determined whether Fife Council acted unlawfully or whether its licensing decision should be overturned.
James Glen, one of the three appellants, criticised the council’s handling of the application and the financial burden now facing those seeking to challenge it.
Glen said: “Fife Council strung objectors along for eight months, accepted their objections as valid and invited them to speak. Then, faced with Uber’s lawyer, it capitulated and shut them out.
“It then granted the licence without further ado, ignoring the stringent conditions set by other authorities on Uber licences.
“Officers and councillors, under Cllr Tom Adams’s stewardship, failed both the taxi trade and the wider Fife public. This was an abuse of the democratic process.
“The Council has apologised, but an apology is nowhere near enough. Individual Fifers should not have to find thousands of pounds to put right the council’s failure to give them a fair hearing.”
An initial target of £5,000 has been set to support the challenge through Nisbets Solicitors & Solicitor Advocates, although the campaign estimates that total potential costs could reach £20,000.
