Transport for London v Uber London Ltd: Admn 16 Oct 2015

TFL sought a declaration as to the legality of the Uber taxi system. Otherwise unlicensed drivers took fares with fees calculated by means of a smartphone app. The Licensed Taxi drivers said that the app operated as a meter and therefore required licensing.
Held: The system was not unlawful. The fare was calculated by a system external to the smarthone, and therefore the phone was not itself a meter: ‘A device for recording time and distance is not a device for calculating a fare based on time and distance, let alone one based on more than that, including the fare structure itself, a necessary component to the calculation. The language of the statute is quite clear. The essence of a taximeter for the purpose of section 11 is that the device must be for the calculation of the fare then to be charged, based on whatever inputs are appropriate. Such a device is not simply recording and transmitting some or all of the inputs to a calculation made elsewhere, or receiving the output, that is the calculated fare. The Smartphone is not a ‘thing designed or adapted for a particular functional purpose’ namely calculating fares for the PHV; see the Shorter OED. It is not a taximeter. The Smartphone with its Driver’s App may be essential to enabling the calculation to take place but that does not make it a device for calculating fares. Nor does that warrant treating the Smartphone as part of a single device with Server 2; it simply is not.’

Ouseley J
[2015] EWHC 2918 (Admin)
Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 11
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Ottewell HL 1968
The antecedent criminal history of an offender is a factor which may be taken into account in determining the sentence to be imposed, but it cannot be given such weight as to lead to the imposition of a penalty which is disproportionate to the . .
CitedThe Presidential Insurance Company Ltd v Resha St Hill PC 16-Aug-2012
(Trinidad and Tobago) The Board considered that when interpreting a statute certain requirements had to be met before external materials could be used. The scope for enquiry into extraneous records, following Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593, is broadly . .
CitedRoyal College of Nursing of the United Kingdom v Department of Health and Social Security HL 2-Jan-1981
The court was asked whether nurses could properly involve themselves in a pregnancy termination procedure not known when the Act was passed, and in particular, whether a pregnancy was ‘terminated by a medical practitioner’, when it was carried out . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Health ex parte Quintavalle (on behalf of Pro-Life Alliance) HL 13-Mar-2003
Court to seek and Apply Parliamentary Intention
The appellant challenged the practice of permitting cell nuclear replacement (CNR), saying it was either outside the scope of the Act, or was for a purpose which could not be licensed under the Act.
Held: The challenge failed. The court was to . .
CitedRegina v Her Majesty’s Attorney General ex parte Rusbridger and Another HL 26-Jun-2003
Limit to Declaratory Refilef as to Future Acts
The applicant newspaper editor wanted to campaign for a republican government. Articles were published, and he sought confirmation that he would not be prosecuted under the Act, in the light of the 1998 Act.
Held: Declaratory relief as to the . .
CitedHaynes, Regina (on the application of) v Stafford Borough Council Admn 14-Jun-2006
Walker J set out the principles applicable (in this case) before making a declaration as to the criminal law. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Licensing

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.553501