The Commercial Court (Birt J) has given judgment in favour of Uber following the trial of a preliminary issue relating to limitation in this high-profile group claim, finding that all of the claims are time barred and should therefore be dismissed: [2026] EWHC 2651 (Comm).
The claim was brought by more than 13,000 black cab drivers (the “Black Cab Claimants”) and the owner of two minicab businesses (“Mr Peters”) against Uber London Limited (“ULL”) and other entities in the Uber group (referred to collectively as “Uber”) for an alleged unlawful means conspiracy. Uber denied the claim in its entirety, including on the basis that the claims were out of time. In that context, the Claimants accepted that their claims had been issued outside the usual six-year limitation period, but they relied on s.32 of the Limitation Act 1980, contending that time did not start to run until a reasonable period of time after 25 and 26 June 2018.
At the first CMC in October 2025, O’Farrell J ordered that this issue be tried by way of a preliminary issue: [2025] EWHC 2972 (Comm).
In a subsequent judgment dated 12 June 2026, following an expedited hearing on 9 June 2026, Birt J ordered the Black Cab Claimants to provide disclosure of certain communications relating to an initial investigation of the claim by the Claimants’ former litigation funder and their solicitors, Mishcon de Reya LLP: [2026] EWHC 1610 (Comm). A more detailed summary of that decision can be found here.
The preliminary issue trial took place shortly thereafter on 29-30 June and 6 July 2026, at which the Court heard evidence from two black cab drivers and Mr Peters.
For the reasons given in his detailed reserved judgment dated 19 October 2026, Birt J rejected the Claimants’ case under s.32 and found that all of the claims were time barred.
In summary, the Court held that the claims could reasonably have been pleaded by reference to information that was in the public domain more than six years before the claims were issued, including a letter from Transport for London (“TfL”) dated 22 September 2017 which set out TfL’s reasons for refusing to renew ULL’s licence to operate in London (referred to in the judgment as the “DL”). The DL was made public by the Licensed Taxi Drivers’ Association on 20 December 2017.
The Claimants relied on the DL for the purposes of pleading their claims in unlawful means conspiracy against Uber. However, the Claimants argued that there were gaps in the DL which meant that they could not reasonably have pleaded their claims until after an appeal against the DL had taken place on 25 and 26 June 2018, and that in any event their actions should not be viewed with the benefit of hindsight.
The Judge rejected both arguments (§§115-152), finding that the DL together with other publicly available material contained sufficient information to support the pleaded case. The Judge noted that it was permissible to plead a claim in fraud by reference to the reasoned conclusions of a reputable source (such as a regulator) and that it was not necessary for the Claimants to wait until the outcome of the appeal was known. In any event, the Judge found that the documents from the appeal did not add materially to what was already known beforehand.
The Judge therefore held that all Claimants could reasonably have discovered the alleged fraud or concealment on which their claims were based more than six years before the claims were issued. The Judge also held that two out of the three witnesses who gave evidence had sufficient actual knowledge (§§160-172) and that there was nothing to suggest that the state of knowledge of the third witness was typical of other black cab drivers.
Sonia Tolaney KC and Michael Watkins acted for Uber, instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP.
Alain Choo Choy KC acted for the Claimants, instructed by Mishcon de Reya LLP.