The High Court will deliver its verdict on the UTAG led Judicial Review against Westminster Magistrates Court at 10am Tuesday 26th February.
The announcement will say whether the decision to grant a licence to Uber was done so on the basis of a conflict of interest and flawed reasoning.
The challenge of the Chief Magistrates decision to issue a 15-month licence to Uber in June last year, was brought by UTAG, with the LTDA as an interested party.
The challenge was primarily based on an allegation that the Magistrate was biased and that a ‘probationary’ licence of the type issued to Uber is not possible or lawful under the legislation.
It also provided the opportunity for LTDA to raise additional concerns that Uber had admitted that they were going to use the TfL licence in 49 other licensing areas, and if the matter is sent back to the Magistrates Court, this should be relevant in deciding if Uber are ‘Fit and Proper’.
The action stems from the cab drivers organisation United Cabbies Group (UCG) who instructed a senior commercial QC to provide a legal opinion on taking legal action against Transport for London, Westminster Magistrates Court and Uber.
The UCG along with supporters from across the industry are called the United Trade Action Group (UTAG) and have been seeking funding for the action since Autumn 2018.
“This is an unprecedented legal challenge against Uber, Transport for London and Westminster Magistrates Court. It will shock many how Uber operate and are allowed to operate under the watchful blindness of the regulatory body there to protect” said Robert Griffiths QC and Barrister Stuart Jessop of 6 Pump Court, Temple.
The Judicial Review marks the first legal step for the group as they look to bring action:
Against Westminster Magistrates and Judicially Review the decision to grant a license to Uber on the basis of conflict of interest and flawed reasoning.
Against Transport for London under multiple causes of action including its failure to regulate the statutory regime.
Against Uber under multiple causes of action including economic torts and the interference of your exclusive right to ply for hire.