Uber has won a High Court bid to dismiss claims worth about £340 million brought by thousands of London black-cab drivers and two former private-hire firms. The judge ruled that the cases had been brought too late, rather than deciding whether the allegations against the company were true.
The claimants alleged that Uber gave Transport for London misleading information when it first obtained a licence to operate in the capital in 2012. Uber denied the claims. Monday’s decision means those allegations were not examined on their merits in the proceedings, an important distinction from a ruling either proving or disproving wrongdoing.
About 13,000 drivers sought nearly £200 million in damages, according to Reuters figures reported by the BBC. A separate action on behalf of Kabbie and Iride, two private-hire businesses that have since closed, sought about £140 million. Together, the claims amounted to approximately £340 million; these were sums requested, not damages awarded.
Six-year time limit at the centre of ruling
The lawsuits were filed in 2024. Uber argued that they fell outside the six-year period for bringing such claims. In a written ruling, Mr Justice Birt said the claimants could have discovered the alleged deception before 2018. That finding was decisive in the company’s application to have the cases dismissed.
A limitation decision concerns whether a claim can proceed after the relevant period has passed. In this case, the question of when the alleged deception could have been discovered was central. The court did not move on to decide whether the information supplied to the transport regulator had actually been misleading.
Uber said it was pleased the court had thrown out the claims at the earliest opportunity. RGL Management, which ran the cases for the claimants, said it was very disappointed and was considering its options with its legal team. The BBC’s report did not confirm that an appeal had been lodged.
Dispute reaches back to London entry
The action focused on the circumstances of Uber’s entry into London’s private-hire market. Transport for London licenses private-hire operators in the capital. The claimants’ allegation concerned the information supplied during the process that led to Uber receiving its first licence in 2012, rather than a new licence application this week.
The company subsequently took much of the trade once dominated by black cabs, the BBC reported. That commercial backdrop explains why drivers and former competing firms pursued damages. It does not, by itself, establish that any loss resulted from the alleged deception: the dismissal means the court did not assess those claims of responsibility.
The drivers’ case and the action for the two companies involved different groups of claimants and different claimed sums. The nearly £200 million attributed to the drivers was separate from the approximately £140 million sought for Kabbie and Iride. The ruling disposed of both on the timing issue, without awarding either group the damages it requested.
For the claimants, the immediate result is that the allegations cannot be tested through these proceedings as they stand. Their management organisation’s response leaves open what legal steps might follow, but considering options is not the same as announcing a successful challenge or a fresh hearing. Any future development would need to be reported separately.
Separate tax case remains ahead
The BBC reported that Uber faces another court dispute next week, when it challenges HM Revenue and Customs in a tax case worth more than £1 billion. That matter is separate from the London drivers’ claims. Monday’s judgment does not decide the tax case or determine the outcome of other legal disputes involving the company.
The distinction matters because the £340 million action concerned alleged conduct during licensing, while the forthcoming case concerns tax. The dismissal of one set of proceedings cannot be treated as resolution of every dispute surrounding Uber’s business. Each involves its own legal questions and evidence.
Monday’s outcome is a substantial procedural victory for Uber and a setback for the drivers and former firms seeking compensation. It leaves the underlying allegations untested in this case: the company denied them, the claimants maintained them, and the judge decided that the claims could not proceed because of the time that had elapsed.
