Uber London Ltd & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Transport for London (TfL) [2017] EWHC 435 (Admin) (03 March 2017)

Uber London Ltd & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Transport for London (TfL) [2017] EWHC 435 (Admin) (03 March 2017)

The English language requirement is lawful and proportionate as TfL has demonstrated it is necessary for public safety and passenger convenience, and no less restrictive means are available. The telephone requirement, as drafted, is unlawful in its full width because it is not shown to be necessary for non-emergency issues, though a more limited emergency hotline requirement would be lawful. The insurance requirement is unlawful as existing legal protections already ensure passenger compensation, making the additional requirement unnecessary.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 435 (Admin)
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 / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; English language requirement upheld; telephone and insurance requirements quashed.
Legal Topics
Proportionality, Indirect Discrimination, Licensing Requirements, Freedom of Establishment, Public Safety, Equality Act 2010, Private Hire Vehicle Regulation
Administrative Law Equality Law Transport Law EU Law Proportionality Indirect Discrimination Licensing Requirements Freedom of Establishment +3 more

Case Brief

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
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 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English language requirement for private hire vehicle drivers imposed by TfL 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 imposed by TfL is lawful.

Ratio Decidendi

The English language requirement is lawful and proportionate as TfL has demonstrated it is necessary for public safety and passenger convenience, and no less restrictive means are available. The telephone requirement, as drafted, is unlawful in its full width because it is not shown to be necessary for non-emergency issues, though a more limited emergency hotline requirement would be lawful. The insurance requirement is unlawful as existing legal protections already ensure passenger compensation, making the additional requirement unnecessary.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; English language requirement upheld; telephone and insurance requirements quashed.

Orders

  • Regulation 9(11) (telephone requirement) quashed.
  • Insurance requirement quashed.