R (on the application of United Trade Action Group Ltd) v Transport for London and another [2022] EWCA Civ 1026

Court: Court of Appeal

Facts: United Trade Action Group Ltd (UTAG), representing London’s black cab drivers, challenged Transport for London’s (TfL) decision to issue a private hire vehicle (PHV) operator's licence to Transopco UK Ltd, operating as FREE NOW. UTAG argued that FREE NOW’s app-based service violated the statutory prohibition against plying for hire, established in 1869, by allowing PHV drivers to solicit business through the app, thus potentially bypassing historical regulations intended for traditional taxi services.

Issue: Whether FREE NOW's app-based model constitutes plying for hire under the statutory framework that distinguishes between traditional taxis and private hire vehicles.

Held: The Court of Appeal ruled that FREE NOW’s app-based model did not breach the plying for hire restrictions. The court found that the app-based service, where passengers must complete a booking before a ride is confirmed, does not involve soliciting business in the immediate, street-hailing manner prohibited by the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869. It was noted that the app system does not equate to traditional taxi services where drivers are actively seeking passengers on the street. The court upheld TfL’s decision to grant FREE NOW a PHV operator's licence.

Key Judicial Statement: The Court of Appeal emphasized that the app-based booking system, requiring pre-booking by passengers, did not equate to the direct solicitation of business prohibited under the 1869 statute. The ruling highlighted the adaptability of legal frameworks to modern business models while respecting the boundaries of historical regulations.

💡Leveluplaw: The case illustrates how historical legal principles, like plying for hire, are applied to modern technologies. By distinguishing between app-based booking and traditional street-hailing, the court maintained regulatory boundaries while accommodating evolving business models in the transport sector.

Previous
Previous

R v Chaytor [2010] UKSC 52

Next
Next

C-200/02 Chen v Home Secretary [2004]