D.E.L.T.A. Merseyside Limited and another (Respondents) v Uber Britannia Limited (Appellant)

Hearing listed

Case summary
Appeal

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2024/0119

Parties

Appellant(s)

Uber Britannia Limited

Respondent(s)

D.E.L.T.A Merseyside Limited

Veezu Holdings Limited

Issue

Whether – under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 – a private hire vehicle operator who accepts a booking is required to contract (as principal) with the relevant customer, to fulfil that booking.

Facts

This appeal concerns the correct interpretation of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (the “Act”), which regulates the provision of private hire vehicles outside of London (other than in Plymouth). (Private hire vehicles in London are regulated by the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 (the “London Act”). DELTA, VHL, and UBL are private hire vehicle operators. Following a Part 8 claim by UBL (a claim seeking a declaration as to the proper interpretation of the Act), Mrs Justice Foster granted the following declaration (the “Declaration”): “In order to operate lawfully under Part II Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, a licensed operator who accepts a booking for a passenger is required to enter as principal into a contractual obligation with the passenger to provide the journey which is the subject of the booking.” This declaration mirrored, and was sought on the back of, the declaration previously made – in relation to the London Act – by the Divisional Court in Uber London Limited v Transport for London (and others) [2021] EWHC 3290 (Admin): “In order to operate lawfully under the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 a licensed operator who accepts a booking from a passenger is required to enter as principal into a contractual obligation with the passenger to provide the journey which is the subject of the booking.” DELTA and VHL successfully appealed against the Declaration in the Court of Appeal (opposed by UBL). UBL now appeals to the Supreme Court.