search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
UBER UPDATE UBER WINS APPEAL


UBER LONDON LIMITED v TRANSPORT FOR LONDON THE DECISION


Uber London Limited (ULL) has won its appeal against Transport for London’s refusal to renew its London PHV operator’s licence. The Deputy Senior District Judge, sitting at Westminster Magis- trates’ Court, decided that Uber London Limited is a fit and proper person to hold such a licence.


The court heard unchallenged evidence of a catalogue of breaches of licence conditions and regulations, seriously compromising pub- lic safety, committed by Uber within the 15-month term of a probationary licence granted to it on appeal in 2017. The essential finding by the judge was that Uber had remedied the failings which had given rise to the breaches. He said: “Despite their historical fail- ings, I find them, now, to be a fit and proper person to hold a PHV licence.” In an important paragraph of his judgment (#45), he said:


“I observe that the ‘fit and proper person’ test is not a test of per- fection. It is ‘an expression directed to ensuring that an applicant for permission to do something has the personal qualities and pro- fessional qualifications reasonably required of a person doing whatever it is that the applicant seeks permission to do’. A holistic view is required.”


There is no question that his conclusion was one which the judge was entitled to reach on the evidence before him. What is unusual about this appeal, however, is that the respondent (Transport for London) did not invite him to conclude otherwise. At no point did TfL ask the judge to uphold its decision to refuse to renew Uber’s licence. Instead, TfL asked him to decide for himself whether Uber, at the date of the appeal and on the evidence before him, was a fit and proper person.


That, we suggest, is a significant departure from the guidance given by the courts in the Hope and Glory litigation ([2009] EWHC 1996 (Admin), [2011] EWCA Civ 341). The task of the court on appeal is to determine whether the decision below is wrong: the task is not to make the decision afresh – yet that is precisely what TfL invited the judge to do. Time and again, following the correct approach ratified by the Court of Appeal in Hope and Glory, judges will hold that a deci- sion is not ‘wrong’ – even if they would have decided the matter differently themselves – because the decision appealed against falls within the legitimate range of decision-making. In our experience, either a licensing authority argues that its decision is right and defends the appeal, or it concedes that in light of new evidence the decision is no longer sustainable, and the appeal is allowed by con- sent. For a licensing authority to take neither one position nor the other, and throw the thing to the court to decide for itself, is in our opinion to abandon its responsibilities as regulator. It is something we have not encountered other than in the two Uber licensing appeals.


LTDA SUBMISSIONS


The LTDA was given limited permission to participate in each of Uber’s licensing appeals. In the most recent one, the LTDA suggest- ed that for several months Uber had covered up its discovery of a serious flaw in the Uber App which allowed drivers to change their profile photograph to that of another person, who was then able to


NOVEMBER 2020


undertake Uber bookings. By the date of TfL’s decision on 25 November 2019, some 13,850 such bookings had been identified – all of them uninsured, all of them undertaken by drivers who had been dismissed by ULL, some of them undertaken by drivers whose licences had been revoked by TfL. The LTDA set out its case for ‘cover-up’ in written submissions.


The judge was not persuaded, however: at paragraph 30 of his decision he says “I have carefully considered the evidence in the context of what [counsel] argues. I do not, however, agree with his interpretation and do not draw the inference that the evidence suggests attempted concealment.” It is perhaps regrettable that TfL once again fought shy of assisting the court with a view of its own, one way or the other. When the judge asked what TfL’s posi- tion was on the ‘cover up’ issue, counsel replied that TfL’s sole witness had not reached any conclusion.


DÉJÀ VU


This appeal marks the second occasion, in a little over two years, in which Uber has been able to persuade a court that between TfL’s refusal to renew its licence and the appeal hearing it has put right the many wrongs that led to TfL’s decision. The judge in the 2018 appeal said: “The question for this court is whether ULL can be trusted when it says it has changed and whether it will maintain the changes when these proceedings drop away”. Leading counsel for TfL in the latest appeal said much the same thing: she said that the “crucial question” was whether Uber could be trusted to break its cycle of “remorse and reform”.


Mending what has been broken, and undertaking not to do the same again, has proved a winning formula for Uber. There cannot be many licensees whose repeated breaches of conditions and regulations are of so little consequence.


Article by Gerald Gouriet QC Licensing Lawyer


Francis Taylor Building Inner Temple ftbchambers.co.uk


91 2


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104