Uber London Ltd & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Transport for London (TfL)

Uber London Ltd & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Transport for London (TfL)

The English language requirement is lawful and proportionate as TfL is entitled to require drivers to demonstrate competence in written and spoken English for passenger safety and regulatory compliance, and no less restrictive means are available. The telephone requirement is unlawful in its full width as it is...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Uber London Limited; Claimant: Mr Sandor Balogh; Claimant: Mr Nikolay Dimitrov; Claimant: Mr Imran Khan; Defendant: Transport for London
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed in part
Legal Topics
Licensing of Private Hire Vehicles, Indirect Discrimination, Proportionality, Regulatory Requirements, Freedom of Establishment
Administrative Law Equality Law Transport Law Licensing of Private Hire Vehicles Indirect Discrimination Proportionality Regulatory Requirements Freedom of Establishment

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Uber London Limited

Claimant

Mr Sandor Balogh

Claimant

Mr Nikolay Dimitrov

Claimant

Mr Imran Khan

Claimant

Transport for London

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English language requirement for private hire drivers is lawful and proportionate under EU and UK equality law
  2. 2 Whether the telephone requirement imposed on operators is lawful and proportionate
  3. 3 Whether the insurance requirement is justified and lawful

Ratio Decidendi

The English language requirement is lawful and proportionate as TfL is entitled to require drivers to demonstrate competence in written and spoken English for passenger safety and regulatory compliance, and no less restrictive means are available. The telephone requirement is unlawful in its full width as it is disproportionate for non-emergency matters, but a limited emergency hotline may be justified. The insurance requirement is unlawful as existing statutory protections render it unnecessary.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part

Orders

  • The English language requirement is upheld and not quashed.
  • The telephone requirement (regulation 9(11)) is quashed; TfL may reconsider a limited emergency hotline.