R (United Trade Action Group Ltd) v Transport for London [2022]
Share
R (on the application of United Trade Action Group Ltd) v Transport for London and another [2022] EWCA Civ 1026 revolves around a legal dispute initiated by the United Trade Action Group Ltd (UTAG), which represents London's black cab drivers. The challenge was against Transport for London's (TfL) decision to issue a private hire vehicle (PHV) operator's licence to Transopco UK Ltd, a company trading under the name FREE NOW.
At the heart of the dispute was the question of whether FREE NOW's operations, primarily conducted through a smartphone app, violated the longstanding statutory prohibition against plying for hire, a concept enshrined in law as far back as 1869. This case is significant because it addresses how historical legal principles apply in the modern age of technology and app-based services.
The black cab industry has long operated under a different statutory regime than PHVs, with strict regulations regarding who can ply for hire – that is, offer taxi services directly to customers without pre-booking. The Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 prohibits anyone other than licensed hackney carriage (taxi) drivers from plying for hire in London. UTAG’s argument centred on the claim that FREE NOW's app-based service effectively circumvents this restriction by enabling PHV drivers to solicit business through technology, thereby making them unfit to hold a license.
The court had to grapple with whether FREE NOW's app-based model constitutes plying for hire. The legal framework for PHVs is set out in the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998, which requires operators to hold a licence and prohibits unlicensed entities from making or accepting bookings. UTAG argued that by allowing PHVs to be booked through an app, FREE NOW's system was analogous to traditional taxi services, where drivers wait for passengers to approach them on the street. The group cited previous case law, including Cogley v Sherwood and Reading BC v Ali [2019], to support its claim that displaying vehicles on an app could amount to an invitation to book, thus constituting plying for hire.
In its decision, the Court of Appeal ruled that FREE NOW's operations did not breach the plying for hire restrictions. It held that since passengers using the app must complete a booking before a ride is confirmed, the service does not involve soliciting business in the immediate manner characteristic of traditional taxi services. The court also noted that the drivers are not actively seeking out customers while waiting for bookings through the app, distinguishing this from the kind of behaviour that would violate the 1869 statute.
Ultimately, the court upheld TfL's decision to grant FREE NOW a PHV operator's licence, rejecting UTAG's challenge. The judgment emphasised that the app-based model remains within the boundaries of current law, despite the evolving nature of transportation services. This case highlights the challenges of applying historic legal concepts to modern technologies and underscores the adaptability of the legal framework to new business models in the transport sector.
At the heart of the dispute was the question of whether FREE NOW's operations, primarily conducted through a smartphone app, violated the longstanding statutory prohibition against plying for hire, a concept enshrined in law as far back as 1869. This case is significant because it addresses how historical legal principles apply in the modern age of technology and app-based services.
The black cab industry has long operated under a different statutory regime than PHVs, with strict regulations regarding who can ply for hire – that is, offer taxi services directly to customers without pre-booking. The Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 prohibits anyone other than licensed hackney carriage (taxi) drivers from plying for hire in London. UTAG’s argument centred on the claim that FREE NOW's app-based service effectively circumvents this restriction by enabling PHV drivers to solicit business through technology, thereby making them unfit to hold a license.
The court had to grapple with whether FREE NOW's app-based model constitutes plying for hire. The legal framework for PHVs is set out in the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998, which requires operators to hold a licence and prohibits unlicensed entities from making or accepting bookings. UTAG argued that by allowing PHVs to be booked through an app, FREE NOW's system was analogous to traditional taxi services, where drivers wait for passengers to approach them on the street. The group cited previous case law, including Cogley v Sherwood and Reading BC v Ali [2019], to support its claim that displaying vehicles on an app could amount to an invitation to book, thus constituting plying for hire.
In its decision, the Court of Appeal ruled that FREE NOW's operations did not breach the plying for hire restrictions. It held that since passengers using the app must complete a booking before a ride is confirmed, the service does not involve soliciting business in the immediate manner characteristic of traditional taxi services. The court also noted that the drivers are not actively seeking out customers while waiting for bookings through the app, distinguishing this from the kind of behaviour that would violate the 1869 statute.
Ultimately, the court upheld TfL's decision to grant FREE NOW a PHV operator's licence, rejecting UTAG's challenge. The judgment emphasised that the app-based model remains within the boundaries of current law, despite the evolving nature of transportation services. This case highlights the challenges of applying historic legal concepts to modern technologies and underscores the adaptability of the legal framework to new business models in the transport sector.
