UBER UPDATE
UBER TRIUMPHS IN £340M HIGH COURT BATTLE AGAINST LONDON BLACK CAB DRIVERS
Uber has secured a major legal victory
after the High Court
dismissed two linked lawsuits worth £340 million brought by around 13,000 London black cab drivers and two defunct private hire operators, Kabbee and Iride. The claimants sued the ride-hailing app in 2024 - following delays caused by Covid-19 - alleging that Uber gave “misleading and in- accurate information” to TfL to obtain its operating licence in 2012, costing rival drivers millions in lost earnings. Claimants represented by RGL Management were seeking nearly £200 million for black cab drivers, with individual payouts estimated
at up to £25,000 each for loss of earnings, alongside a £140 million claim on behalf of Kabbee and Iride. However, on 19 October, Mr Justice Birt threw out the cases entirely on limitation grounds without con- sidering whether the allegations were true. Ruling that the lawsuits fell outside the standard six-year legal time limit, the judge stated that the claimants could have reasonably discovered the alleged deception before 2018. Uber’s legal team had argued that drivers had sufficient information to investigate years earlier, citing TfL’s 2017 decision to temporarily refuse Uber's licence renewal and evidence that lawyers had already
begun exploring class-action proceedings in late 2017. Following the High Court ruling, RGL Management stated: “We are obviously very disappointed and are considering all options available to the claimant cab drivers with the legal team.” An Uber spokesperson welcomed the judgment, saying: “We are pleased that the court has dismissed all of these claims entirely at the earliest opportunity and the ruling today has put these legacy matters firmly in the past.” The decision removes a massive potential liability for Uber at a time when the company is expanding its operations into AVs across the UK.
COURT APPEAL CHALLENGES FIFE COUNCIL’S HANDLING OF UBER OBJECTIONS
A legal appeal has been served challenging Fife Council’s decision to grant Uber a booking office licence
after hundreds of
objections were rejected without being heard. The writ, served on 20 October, asks Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court to quash the decision and return the application to Fife Council for reconsideration, with the appellants’ objections taken into account. The appeal is brought by James Glen, Tahir Ali and Tariq Ali. It argues that the council made errors of law, relied on incorrect material facts, exercised its discretion unreasonably and acted contrary to natural justice. Uber Scot Limited applied on 23 January 2026 for a booking office
28
licence at Rosyth Business Centre. When the application came before the council’s Regulation and Licensing Committee on 22 September, 25 objectors had been invited to address members. At the outset, Uber’s solicitor challenged the validity of the objections. Following legal advice and a lengthy recess, the com- mittee rejected them. The licence was subsequently granted under delegated powers without the objectors presenting their case. The decision and subsequent council apology attracted cover- age local news outlets. The writ advances three central arguments: l Signed postal objections were submitted.
l Objectors were denied a fair opportunity to respond.
l Typed names could satisfy the signature requirement. It also refers to correspondence in which a licensing officer expressly accepted an objector’s digital signature before the hearing. These are the appellants’ argu- ments and have
yet to be
determined by the court. James 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. This was an abuse of the democratic process.”
NOVEMBER 2026 PHTM
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
