Uber Britannia Ltd v Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Foster DBE |
| Judgment Date | 28 July 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] EWHC 1975 (KB) |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: QB-2022-001802 |
[2023] EWHC 1975 (KB)
Mrs Justice Foster DBE
Case No: QB-2022-001802
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Ranjit Bhose KC and Mr Josef Cannon (instructed by Hogan Lovells) for the Claimant
Mr Charles Holland (instructed by Sefton MBC) for the Defendant
The First Intervenor neither appeared nor was represented.
Ms Claire McCann (instructed by ITN Solicitors) for the Second Intervenor
Mr Simon Cheetham KC (instructed by Veezu Holdings Ltd) for the Third Intervenor
Mr Gerald Gouriet KC (instructed by Aaron & Partners) for the Fourth Intervenor
Hearing dates: 3 and 4 November 2022
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down remotely at 3.00pm on 28 July 2023 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
THE PARTIES AND THE CLAIM
This is the Claimant Uber Britannia Limited (“UBL”)'s Part 8 Claim pursuant to section 19 Senior Courts Act 1981 and CPR 40.20 seeking declaratory relief in respect of an issue of statutory interpretation.
UBL is owned by Uber Technologies Inc and has since June 2015 held a series of private-hire vehicle operator's licences (“PHV operator's licences”) granted by the Defendant (“Sefton”) under Part II of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (“the 1976 Act”). It is currently also licensed by 52 licensing authorities including Sefton. A sister company, Uber London Limited (“ULL”), is in similar ownership and is the holder of a London PHV operator's licence, granted by Transport for London under the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 (“the 1998 Act”). UBL's licences are to operate private-hire vehicles within its area. Sixty-nine other PHV operators are similarly licenced under section 55(1) of the 1976 Act by Sefton.
The Claimant invites the Court to interpret Part II of the 1976 Act which, aside from in London and in Plymouth, regulates private-hire vehicles in England and Wales. Plymouth is governed by the Plymouth City Council Act 1975, and London by the 1998 Act.
The question the Court is required to answer has been framed as:
“ In order to operate lawfully under Part II Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 is a licensed operator who accepts a booking from a passenger required to enter as principal into a contractual obligation with the passenger to provide the journey which is the subject of the booking?”
It is UBL's contention in these proceedings the answer to this question is “yes”. The First Intervenor, Bolt Services UK Limited (“Bolt”), and the Second Intervenor, The App Drivers and Couriers Union (“ADCU”), support its interpretation whereas the Third Intervenor, Veezu Holdings Limited (“Veezu”), and Fourth Intervenor, D.E.L.T.A Merseyside Limited (“Delta”), oppose UBL's position on the law. Sefton states that it remains neutral but has furnished the Court with helpful evidence, in common with the other Intervenors and with UBL itself.
The relevant details of the Intervenors are as follows:
(a) The First Intervenor, Bolt, offers ride hailing services. They filed an Acknowledgement of Service indicating agreement with the position of the Claimant and seeking the same Order for a declaration but took no part in the hearing.
(b) The Second Intervenor, ADCU, supporting UBL, is an accredited union, and described as the leading trade union representative body for private-hire drivers in London and the United Kingdom. ADCU states its union is primarily made up of low paid Black, Asian and other minority ethnic groups and the vast majority work for Uber or other similar app-based operators in London.
(c) The Third Intervenor, Veezu, holds 32 private-hire operator licences across 22 local licensing authorities and is understood to be the largest multi-region private-hire operator outside London. It described itself as trading in a “traditional private-hire” operating manner in contrast to UBL, which Veezu describe as a “ride-hailer”, and where bookings are restricted to being made on a smartphone application, for journeys on demand. Veezu do invite and accept bookings for journeys on demand, or on a pre-booked basis from the public by telephone, by walk-in trade and, as to the majority, through a smartphone app via a website. Passengers may pay for their fares in cash directly to the licensed driver as well as by card to the driver or to the private-hire operator on the mobile app. Veezu notes UBL accept payment only via the mobile app. Veezu say they speak for a number of private-hire operators in towns and cities in regions across the UK and that the majority of such operators support their submissions on this application.
(d) Delta, the Fourth Intervenor, aligned against UBL, describe themselves as one of the largest private-hire operators in the UK and the leading operator in Merseyside. They take 130,000 bookings each week, and have around 1,320 drivers. They have consulted other named private hire operators, who represent the majority of private-hire operators in Sefton in terms of market share and, in effect, they act as their voice in these proceedings.
ISSUE
The issue concerns the relationship between an “operator” under the 1976 Act, who accepts a booking from a passenger, and that passenger. It is UBL's case that, consistently with the Divisional Court's construction of the 1998 Act in Uber London Limited v Transport for London (and others) [2021] EWHC 3290 (Admin), (“the ULL case”), an operator who accepts a booking from a passenger enters as principal into a contractual obligation with the passenger to provide the journey which is the subject of the booking. The Court in the ULL case held that if not entering into direct contractual relations with the passenger, the operator was acting unlawfully. The matter went to appeal, but not on this point.
FACTUAL CONTEXT
UBL explains that Uber provides an app through which some four and a half million passengers each month take trips in the United Kingdom, where over 85,000 drivers earn a living through Uber. When a passenger requests a booking, ULL or UBL according to passenger location, accepts that booking and assumes the functions of a PHV operator. These functions include identifying suitable drivers, keeping records of the booking, and dealing with feedback, questions and complaints.
The context to this application relied upon by UBL is succinctly set out in their Details of Claim document:
“ 11. In Uber London Limited v Transport for London (and others) [2021] EWHC 3290 (Admin) the Divisional Court considered the question whether, in order to operate lawfully under the 1998 Act, a licensed operator who accepts a booking from a passenger is required to enter as principal into a contractual obligation with the passenger to provide the journey which is the subject of the booking. It was asked to do so by ULL in the light of obiter statements of Lord Leggatt in Uber BV and others v Aslam and others [2021] UKSC 5, at [47] and [48].
12. The Divisional Court answered the question in the affirmative. It held that to interpret the 1998 Act as including such a requirement “gives effect to the statutory purpose of ensuring public safety” [30]. It granted a declaration in the following terms:
“In order to operate lawfully under the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 a licensed operator who accepts a booking from a passenger is required to enter as principal into a contractual obligation with the passenger to provide the journey which is the subject of the booking.”
13. The Divisional Court noted that “an operator which does not undertake the required contractual obligation is not operating lawfully” [36]. Following the judgment, Transport for London issued a notice requiring London private hire vehicle operators to ensure that their operating models comply with the law, as held by the Divisional Court.
14. Although the Divisional Court's judgment is concerned with the proper construction of the 1998 Act, that Act is modelled on the 1976 Act and, in the course of its judgment, the Court referred to the 1976 Act as supporting the conclusion to which it came.
15. The Claimant considers that the same question arises under the 1976 Act…”
Veezu operates exclusively outside London from South Wales to the West of England, West Midlands and West Yorkshire. They describe 52% of their passengers as being low income. It is the ultimate owner of five private hire vehicle brands, each having operated locally since the early 1980s, a traditional private-hire operator, not a ride-hailer. Vehicles must be pre-booked via a licensed private hire operator; some of its drivers have a private hire licence and a public hire licence. Veezu suggests that the analogy drawn between the 1998 Act as construed in the ULL case, is inapt and the 1976 Act must be considered separately. It reflects the manner in which the industry has operated for many years and should produce a different result.
Veezu offers two types of service, one to corporate account customers and one to noncorporate account customers. In respect of the former Veezu provides what they describe as “transportation services”, meaning booking, despatching a vehicle, keeping records, managing complaints, etc. For non-corporate account customers it is a booking service, but the “transportation services” are provided by the licensed driver. They describe themselves as acting as a “disclosed intermediary” between the driver and the passenger and refer to the different VAT treatment in respect of supplies to the two...
To continue reading
Request your trial