Abstract
Uber (By using the company’s name ‘Uber’ in this chapter, we refer to Uber X/Uber Black, and not the UberPop and UberEats services. In the domestic context, Uber is understood as a transportation company and not as a mere intermediary between service-providers and customers using the Uber app. See Aslam v Uber BV [2017] I.R.L.R.4 (ET) 89, 92. This interpretation of the company’s nature, legal status, purpose and obligations is in line with the interpretation of CJEU on the same matter in Case C-434/15 Asociación Profesional Èlite Taxi v Uber Systems Spain SL, judgment of 20 December 2017, ECLI:EU:C:2017:981.) is omnipresent in the United Kingdom (UK): from Glasgow to Brighton and from Cardiff to Cambridge, through the major English cities of London, Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham and Nottingham (Uber 2019). Uber’s operation in the UK is mutually beneficial: the UK is an important market for Uber globally, and, in turn, Uber is a main player in the UK market for personal transport, giving it political leverage Dudley et al. (2017). Regulatory issues on Uber’s operations, the employment status of Uber drivers, as well as uncertainty as to the possibility of Uber’s liability for personal injury and property damage have been drawing significant attention in the legal and political discourse on the British Isles. This chapter grapples with the interplay of these legal matters and Uber’s rise and expansion in the domestic context. Before proceeding any further, however, two complications need to be addressed from the outset.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
By using the company’s name ‘Uber’ in this chapter, we refer to Uber X/Uber Black, and not the UberPop and UberEats services. In the domestic context, Uber is understood as a transportation company and not as a mere intermediary between service-providers and customers using the Uber app. See Aslam v Uber BV [2017] I.R.L.R.4 (ET) 89, 92. This interpretation of the company’s nature, legal status, purpose and obligations is in line with the interpretation of CJEU on the same matter in Case C-434/15 Asociación Profesional Èlite Taxi v Uber Systems Spain SL, judgment of 20 December 2017, ECLI:EU:C:2017:981.
- 2.
Uber (2019).
- 3.
Dudley et al. (2017).
- 4.
By virtue of European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (as amended), ss. 2, 3 and 7.
- 5.
Case C-434/15 Asociación Profesional Èlite Taxi v Uber Systems Spain SL, judgment of 20 December 2017, ECLI:EU:C:2017: 981, [39–41].
- 6.
Council Directive 2006/123/EC of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market [2006] OJ L 376/36, Article 2(2)(d).
- 7.
n 8) [47].
- 8.
Topham G (2019).
- 9.
See our analysis below p. 8.
- 10.
We briefly explain the scheme of the private hire trade in the UK below, pp. 5–6.
- 11.
BBC News (2019).
- 12.
Ibid.
- 13.
England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have different systems and frameworks. While the regulatory issues addressed in this chapter are all shared by the different countries of the United Kingdom we are mostly referring to English examples.
- 14.
Lanxon (2019) Is This the End of the Road for Uber in London? Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/is-thisthe-end-of-the-road-for-uber-in-london/2019/11/25/8fab68a6-0f83-11ea-924c-b34d09bbc948_story.html. Accessed 18 Apr 2020.
- 15.
BBC News (2019).
- 16.
ViaVan (2020).
- 17.
Kapten (2020).
- 18.
Bolt (2020).
- 19.
OlaRide (2020).
- 20.
Kabbee (2020).
- 21.
Gett (2020).
- 22.
Wheely (2020).
- 23.
Xooox (2020).
- 24.
Katwala (2019).
- 25.
Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998, ss 2(1), 6(1) and 36, also Greater London Authority Act 1999, s 254(1) and (3) and Sch 21, para 17 which conferred the licensing jurisdiction to TfL
- 26.
Greater London Authority Act 1999, ss 141(1) and 154(3).
- 27.
As defined by the Town Police Clauses Act 1847s 38: Every wheeled carriage, whatever may be its form or construction, used in standing or plying for hire in any street within the prescribed distance, and every carriage standing upon any street within the prescribed distance, having thereon any numbered plate required by this or the special act to be fixed upon a hackney carriage, or having thereon any plate resembling or intended to resemble any such plate as aforesaid, shall be deemed to be a hackney carriage.
- 28.
Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998, s. 1(1): “private hire vehicle” means a vehicle constructed or adapted to seat fewer than nine passengers which is made available with a driver…for hire for the purpose of carrying passengers, other than a licensed taxi or a public service vehicle. (emphasis supplied)
- 29.
For more details on the differences of taxi and PHV regulation, see Local Government Association (2017) Taxi and PHV licensing. Councillors’ handbook (England and Wales). https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/10.9%20Councillor%20Handbook%20-%20Taxi%20and%20PHV%20Licensing_November_2017.pdf. Accessed 18 Apr 2020.
- 30.
Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998, s 6(1).
- 31.
Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998, s 2(1).
- 32.
Ibid., s. 3(3) (emphasis supplied).
- 33.
Greater London Authority Act 1999, s 253 and sch 20, para 1(1).
- 34.
TfL (2020).
- 35.
Dudley et al. (2017, p.493).
- 36.
Ibid.
- 37.
Katwala (2019).
- 38.
Ferrari (2016).
- 39.
(n 30).
- 40.
Mayor of London (2016).
- 41.
Ibid., (p. 496).
- 42.
UberPool—a service that matches passengers going along similar routes and placing them in one car at a discounted rate.
- 43.
Dudley et al. (2017, p. 497).
- 44.
Transport for London v Uber London Ltd (Transport for London v Uber London Ltd [2015] EWHC 2918.
- 45.
Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998, s 11.
- 46.
TfL v Uber London Ltd (n 47) [49].
- 47.
R. on the Application of Uber London Limited, Mr Sandor Balogh, Mr Nikolay Dimitrov, Mr Imran Khan v Transport for London [2017] EWHC 435.
- 48.
TfL (2017) Licensing decision on Uber London Limited. https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2017/september/licensing-decision-on-uber-london-limited. Accessed 18 Apr 2020.
- 49.
Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998, s. 7(7).
- 50.
Uber London Limited v Transport for London. Westminster Magistrates Court. Judgment of 26 June 2018 [40–42].
- 51.
TfL (2019) Uber London Limited Found To Be Not A Fit And Proper To Hold A Private Hire Operator Licence. https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2019/november/uber-london-limited-found-to-be-not-fit-and-proper-to-hold-a-private-hire-operator-licence. Accessed 18 Apr 2020.
- 52.
Uber (2019).
- 53.
A payment for entering the city centre on weekdays in working hours.
- 54.
Greater London (Central Zone) Congestion Charging Variation Order 2018, sch 1, art 6.
- 55.
TfL (2016), ‘English language requirement’ https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-private-hire/english-language-requirement. Accessed 18 Apr 2020.
- 56.
TfL (2019).
- 57.
For example with regard to the English language test, the courts have upheld TfLs regulation, considering it to be of a reasonable extent in R. on the Application of Uber London Limited (n 51). For more details on these disputes, see Marique and Marique (2018).
- 58.
Dudley et al. (2017, p. 498).
- 59.
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, s. 46(1).
- 60.
Marique and Marique (2018, p. 21).
- 61.
Ibid.
- 62.
Ibid., (pp. 21–22).
- 63.
Ibid., (pp. 22–23).
- 64.
Business Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee of the House of Commons (2016).
- 65.
Butcher (2018).
- 66.
Ibid.
- 67.
Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 (32 and 33 Vict c 115), s 4.
- 68.
London Cab Act 1896 (59 and 60 Vict c 27), s. 3: ‘the expression “cab” shall mean any hackney carriage within the meaning of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869”, see (n 57)’.
- 69.
London Hackney Carriage Act 1831 (1 and 2 Will 4 c 22).
- 70.
London Hackney Carriage Act 1843 (6 and 7 Vict c 86), s 8.
- 71.
London Hackney Carriage Act 1850 (13 and 14 Vict c 7), s 2.
- 72.
Greater London Authority Act 1999, s 253, sch 20, part 1, [1–8]
- 73.
London Cab Act 1968, s 4B.
- 74.
See for example, London Cab Order 2019 of 4 December 2019. http://content.tfl.gov.uk/london-cab-order-2019-taxi-fares.pdf. Accessed 18 Apr 2020.
- 75.
Dudley et al. (2017, p. 495).
- 76.
Ferrari (2016, p. 26).
- 77.
Inflation in that period has been 50%, see ibid., (p. 31).
- 78.
Ibid.
- 79.
- 80.
Ferrari (2016, p. 31).
- 81.
The comparison was done virtually: we took the journey distance and estimated time to calculate the fare for each provider, except for the Black Cab and Uber where we used the TfL calculator for the former and the Uber app for the latter. Important variables such as surge charge and traffic coefficients are not included—in heavy traffic, a Black Cab can have the advantage of convenient shortcuts.
- 82.
Based on the app prediction—does not include traffic or surge coefficients.
- 83.
Topham (2016) Black Cab’s Driver’s Uber Protest Brings London Traffic To A Standstill. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/10/black-cab-drivers-uber-protest-london-traffic-standstill. Accessed 18 Apr 2020.; Grafton-Green (2018) London Taxi Protest: Black Cab Drivers Stage Demo Against TfL and Uber, Evening Standard. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-taxi-protest-traffic-chaos-at-elephant-and-castle-as-black-cab-drivers-descend-to-protest-tfl-a3740711.html. Accessed 18 Apr 2020.
- 84.
Bennhold (2017) On London’s Streets, Black Cabs and Uber Fight For A Future. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/04/world/europe/london-uk-brexit-uber-taxi.html. Accessed 18 Apr 2020.
- 85.
Ibid.
- 86.
Ibid.
- 87.
Adam and Booth (2017) In London, Black Cabs Win A Battle Against Uber. But Is The War Over? Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/in-london-black-cabs-win-a-battle-against-uber-but-is-the-war-over/2017/10/17/8a2c1468-a395-11e7-b573-8ec86cdfe1ed_story.html. Accessed 18 Apr 2020.
- 88.
Ainsworth (2017).
- 89.
R (on the application of Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain and others) v The Mayor of London [2019] EWHC 1997 (Admin), [78] (Lewis J).
- 90.
For present purposes, suffice it to say that principle-based regulation differs from prescriptive regulation in one crucial aspect. Prescriptive regulation relies on the capacity of state authorities to create particular rules that govern the behaviour of private actors and enforce them through formal enforcement procedures. By contrast, principle-based regulation involves the establishment of broad principles by the state. Private corporations are supposed to demonstrate their compliance with these principles, but they are not limited in how they will achieve this. In fact, they are encouraged to develop their own rules and standards.
- 91.
The last time was in November 2019 due to safety concerns and before this, the company licence renewal application was rejected by Transport for London (TfL) in September 2017, Topham (2019).
In this section, since we will be only discussing Uber–TfL interactions, we will be using the term ‘ULL’ (Uber London Limited) to distinguish Uber’s office in London from other offices in the UK as well as Uber as transnational entity.
- 92.
For example, TfL was informed by Metropolitan Police in 2017 that ULL had not reported a number of serious and potentially criminal allegations against its drivers to the police. ULL, when asked, argued that passengers’ privacy mandates the passengers themselves report such incidents, despite TfL’s relevant guidelines in place stating that it is operators’ responsibility to do so. In addition, tension arose because ULL was using an unsound online system for their drivers’ medical checks (Push Doctor). Another example is their disagreement over the drivers enhanced criminal records checks. ULL recommended to their drivers to use a third-party company, i.e., Onfido,, to obtain these checks, instead of the TfL appointed GBGroup (a registered body to obtain these checks on TfL’s behalf). It emerged that Onfido was relying on ULL itself to conduct identification of drivers. This move was interpreted by TfL as another step ‘to interfere with TfL’s private hire licensing requirements’. See TfL (2017).
- 93.
According to this provision, ‘no person shall in London make provision for the invitation or London acceptance of, or accept, private hire bookings unless he is the holder of operator’s licence, a private hire vehicle operator’s licence for London’. If someone acts in contravention of this, section is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
- 94.
Witness Statement of Helen Kay Chapman (2018).
- 95.
Ibid., [75].
- 96.
Ibid., [79(c)].
- 97.
Chapman (2018, [101]).
- 98.
Ibid., [105].
- 99.
Ibid., [47].
- 100.
Ibid., [113].
- 101.
Ibid., [117].
- 102.
Swansea is one example where Uber’s application for a licence has been rejected, See: Walford (2017).
- 103.
London, Manchester, Bristol, Leeds, Leicester, Sheffield, Nottingham Edinburgh and Glasgow are only some of the UK cities where Uber is operating. See Uber, Find Uber in cities around the world. https://www.uber.com/global/en/cities/. Accessed 18 Apr 2020.
- 104.
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, s. 55, 1(a).
- 105.
Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998, s 3(a).
- 106.
While TfL, in their operators guidance documents, outline both the administrative requirements necessary for the ‘fit and proper’ test and the elements that an operator should show their compliance with in the event of enforcement process (inspection). See s. 4a and 4b in TfF ‘A guide for applicants who are applying for a London private hire operator’s licence. http://content.tfl.gov.uk/phv-102.pdf
- 107.
See for example Leeds City Council, Taxi and Private Hire Licensing: Standard Conditions attached to operators licence. https://www.leeds.gov.uk/docs/Private%20Hire%20Vehicle%20Conditions.pdf; Exeter City Council. New operators application form. https://exeter.gov.uk/licensing/taxis-and-private-hire/private-hire-operators-licences/apply-for-a-new-private-hire-operators-licence/. Accessed 18 Apr 2020.
- 108.
Butcher (2018, p. 36) citing Law Commission, Taxi and Private Hire Services. Law Com No 347 (May 2014) [7.52].
- 109.
Local Government Association (2017, p. 7).
- 110.
Task and Finish Group on Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Licensing (2018) Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Licensing: Steps towards a safer and more robust system’ [2.4]. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/745516/taxi-and-phv-working-group-report.pdf. Accessed 18 Apr 2020.
- 111.
Department for Transport (2019) Government response; Report of the Task and Finish Group on Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Licensing: Moving Britain Ahead 8. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/847315/taxi-task-and-finish-gov-repsonse.pdf. Accessed 18 Apr 2020.
- 112.
Phillips (2018).
- 113.
Ibid.
- 114.
‘Gig economy’ has become an autonomous news-column; See among others BBC News. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/c45x56x82mvt/gig-economy. Accessed 18 Apr 2020; the Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/business/the-gig-economy. Accessed 18 Apr 2020.
- 115.
Watts J (2018) Gig economy: Theresa May promises to improve conditions for millions of workers. Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/gig-economy-workers-rights-theresa-may-holiday-sick-pay-contracts-a8197906.html. Accessed 18 Apr 2020.
- 116.
Commons Select Committee (2017) Uber, Deliveroo, Hermes and Amazon questioned on ‘gig economy’. UK Parliament. https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/work-and-pensions-committee/news-parliament-2015/self-employment-gig-economy-evidence2-16-17/. Accessed 18 Apr 2020; Coghlan (2018).
- 117.
Johnston (2016).
- 118.
Employment Rights Act 1996, s 230(b). According to this section ‘worker’ is a person working under a contract ‘whereby the individual undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services for another party to the contract whose status is not by virtue of the contract that of a client or customer of any profession or business undertaking carried on by the individual’. The same line is followed in Working Time Regulations 1998s 2(1)(b), National Minimum Wage Act 1998s 1(2)(a), Employment Relations Act 1999s 13 (1)(a), and the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000s 1 (2)(b).
- 119.
For a brief depiction of the ‘employee’ and ‘worker’ status entitlements see the UK government’s guidelines on employment status. https://www.gov.uk/employment-status. Accessed 18 Apr 2020.
- 120.
Aslam (n 4).
- 121.
Employment Rights Act 1996, s 230(3)(b).
- 122.
See Footnote 122.
- 123.
Ibid., [90].
- 124.
Ibid., [89] and [92].
- 125.
Ibid., [92].
- 126.
On the reliance of similar employment law cases using the ‘economic reality test’ and ‘control test’, see, e.g., Ratti L (2017).
- 127.
Osborne H (2016).
- 128.
Uber BV v Aslam [2018] EWCA Civ 2748; Uber BV v Aslam and Ors [2017] UKEAT
- 129.
Marique and Marique (2018, p. 19).
- 130.
Di Gennaro and Pavone (2018) Italian labour court hands down landmark decision on Foodora case with potentially far-reaching implications for any company active in Italy’s growing Gig economy. Global Workplace Insider. https://www.globalworkplaceinsider.com/2018/05/italian-labour-court-hands-down-landmark-decision-on-foodora-case-with-potentially-far-reaching-implications-for-any-company-active-in-italys-growing-gig-economy/. Accessed 18 Apr 2020; Bohic (2018).
- 131.
Todolli-Signes (2017).
- 132.
Butler (2018).
- 133.
Bales et al. (2018).
- 134.
Ibid., (p. 61).
- 135.
Ferrari (2016, p. 60).
- 136.
Ibid.
- 137.
See Footnote 122.
- 138.
Ferrari (2016, p. 60).
- 139.
Ibid.
- 140.
Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax [2006] OJ L 347/1, Article 44.
- 141.
Bergin (2017) Exclusive—Loophole Allows Uber To Avoid UK Tax, Undercut Rivals. https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-uber-tax-britain/exclusive-loophole-allows-uber-to-avoid-uk-tax-undercut-rivals-idUKKBN18Y1Z6. Accessed 18 Apr 2020.
- 142.
Value Added Tax Act 1994, s 3(2), sch 3.
- 143.
Bergin (2017).
- 144.
Ibid.
- 145.
Ferrari (2016, p. 60).
- 146.
Walton et al. (2018).
- 147.
Butler (or Black) and another v Fife Coal Company Ltd [1912] AC 149, 154 (Earl Loreburn LC): ‘there was a duty upon the mine owners to appoint and keep in charge persons competent to deal with the dangers arising in this mine, and that they did not discharge this duty, whereby this unfortunate man met with his death’. The appeal was from Scotland and so was grounded in Scots Law, but the case was considered in Harrison v National Coal Board [1951] AC 639 for example at 642 without confining it to Scots law. It is treated as prima facie applying also in England and Wales in Peel E, Goudkamp J (eds) (2014) Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort, 19th edn. Sweet and Maxwell, UK, [9-021]. See also Color Quest Ltd and others v Total Downstream UK plc [2009] EWHC 540 (Comm), [330]-[365].
- 148.
Ross v Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers Ltd [1964] 1 WLR (HL) 768, 777 (Lord Reid) considered in terms of statutory liability under Factories Act 1937 and Factories Act 1969, but see Lord Donovan at 786: ‘claim against the respondents, grounded in breach of statutory duty, can yield no different result from the action at common law’. See also McGarvey v EVE NCI Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 374.
- 149.
Tofaris S (2018).
- 150.
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4; [2018] AC 736, [26] (Lord Reed).
- 151.
James-Bowen v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2018] UKSC 40, [22] (Lord Lloyd-Jones).
- 152.
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman and others (HL) [1990] 2 AC 606.
- 153.
See Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (CA) [2014] EWCA Civ 15, [40]: ‘the Caparo test applies to all claims in the modern law of negligence’ (Hallett LJ).
- 154.
Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2015] UKSC 2; [2015] AC 1732, [106] (Lord Toulson).
- 155.
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman and others (HL) [1990] 2 AC 606, 615 (Lord Bridge).
- 156.
East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v Kent [1941] AC 74, 86–87 (Viscount Simon LC).
- 157.
See below Sect. 5.1.2.
- 158.
Henderson and others v Merrett Syndicates Ltd and others (HL) [1995] 2 AC 145, 193.
- 159.
Uber, Terms and Conditions (updated 17 Mar 2020), available online at. https://www.uber.com/legal/en/document/?name=general-terms-of-use&country=great-britain&lang=en-gb. Accessed 22 Apr 2020.
- 160.
Delaney v Pickett [2011] EWCA Civ 1532, [38] (Ward LJ).
- 161.
Woodland v Swimming Teachers Association [2013] UKSC 66, [3]; Winfield and Jolowicz (n), [21-001].
- 162.
Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust [2006] UKHL 34; [2007] 1 AC 224, [15] (Lord Nicholls); Fecitt and others v NHS Manchester [2011] EWCA Civ 1190, [33]: ‘Absent any legal wrong by the employee, there is no room for the doctrine to operate’ (Elias LJ).
- 163.
The Catholic Child Welfare Society and others v Various Claimants and The Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools and others [2012] UKSC 56; [2013] 2 AC 1 (‘Christian Brothers case), [21] (Lord Phillips); Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants (in the Supreme Court) (‘Barclays v VC’) [2020] UKSC 12, [1] (Lady Hale).
- 164.
Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants (SC) [2020] UKSC 12.
- 165.
WM Morrisons Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants (‘Morrisons v VC’) (SC) [2020] UKSC 11.
- 166.
Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92, 104 (Lord MacMillan), see also Sutherland v Glasgow Corporation [1951] SC (HL) 1, 6 (Lord Normand): ‘The drivers of public vehicles, such as tramway cars and omnibuses particularly, may reasonably be expected to have skill and quickness of decision capable of coping with all ordinary traffic emergencies without endangering their passengers’.
- 167.
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (‘OLA 1957’), s 2(2).
- 168.
OLA 1957, s 1(3).
- 169.
Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants (SC) [2020] UKSC 12, [7].
- 170.
Christian Brothers case (n 166), [19].
- 171.
Christian Brothers case (n 166); Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10; [2016] AC 660; Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC 11; [2016] AC 667; Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council [2017] UKSC 60; [2018] AC 355; WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 11 and Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants (SC) [2020] UKSC 12.
- 172.
D & F Estates Ltd v Church Commissioners [1989] AC 177, 208 (Lord Bridge).
- 173.
Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants (SC) [2020] UKSC 12, [24].
- 174.
See above Sect. 3 and Uber BV v Aslam [2018] EWCA Civ 2748.
- 175.
Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants (SC) [2020] UKSC 12, [29].
- 176.
Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2214.
- 177.
Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2018] EWCA Civ 1670 (in the Court of Appeal).
- 178.
Johnson (2020), available online at https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/legal-updates/rowing-back-on-vicarious-liability/5103876.article. Accessed 22 Apr 2020.
- 179.
WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12, [46]: ‘Although in some respects the judgment in Bellman adopted a similar [flawed] approach to Mohamud to that adopted by the Court of Appeal in the present case, the conclusion reached was correct’ (Lord Reed).
- 180.
Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants (SC) [2020] UKSC 12, [30].
- 181.
Cl 2 Part 2 Uber’s Terms and Conditions (n 196).
- 182.
Ferguson v Dawson and Partners (Contractors) Ltd [1976] 1 WLR. 1213, 1222, 1230.
- 183.
Market Investigations Ltd v Minister of Social Security [1969] 2 QB 173, 186.
- 184.
As early as 2012 Lord Philips noted ‘Today it is not realistic to look for a right to direct how an employee should perform his duties as a necessary element in the relationship between employer and employee’, Christian Brothers case (n 166), [36]. This was echoed recently by Lady Hale in the Barclays case: see Footnote 175.
- 185.
Christian Brothers case (n 166), [47], [60].
- 186.
Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants (SC) [2020] UKSC 12, [22].
- 187.
Cox (n 174), [24] (emphasis supplied).
- 188.
Cox (n 174), [32].
- 189.
Hatzopoulos (2018).
- 190.
Katwala (2019).
- 191.
Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants (SC) [2020] UKSC 12, [28].
- 192.
Ibid.
- 193.
E v English Province of Our Lady of Charity [2012] EWCA Civ 938; [2013] QB 722 [54] (Ward LJ): ‘one cannot understand how the law relating to vicarious liability has developed nor how, if at all, it should develop without being aware of the various strands of policy which have informed that development’.
- 194.
Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants (SC) [2020] UKSC 12, [55].
- 195.
Ibid., [28].
- 196.
Ibid., [45].
- 197.
Ibid., [16] (Lady Hale).
- 198.
Ibid., [1–5].
- 199.
Christian Brothers Case (n 166), [35].
- 200.
Ibid.
- 201.
See section I.2 above at p. 13.
- 202.
Cox (n 174), [20–21].
- 203.
Armes v Nottinghamshire CC [2017] UKSC 60; [2018] AC 355, [63] (Lord Reed).
- 204.
London Assembly, ‘Questions to the Mayor: Uber Accidents’ (May 16, 2019).
- 205.
See Footnote 150, and Morrisons v Various Claimants (n 202), [36] (Lord Reed).
- 206.
[1938] 3 All ER 779.
- 207.
Ibid., 781 (Greer LJ).
- 208.
[1904] 2 KB 602.
- 209.
Ibid., 615 (Lord Collins MR).
- 210.
Ibid., 612.
- 211.
White and wife v Steadman [1913] 3 KB 340.
- 212.
Ibid., 349 (Lush J).
- 213.
Ibid., 347.
- 214.
Ibid., 348.
- 215.
Keen v Henry [1894] 1 QB 292, 294 (Lord Esher MR); King v London Improved Cab Co Ltd (1889) 23 QBD 281, 283: ‘public are entitled, whether as between the proprietor and the driver the relationship of master and servant exists or not, to say that so far as the public are concerned that relationship must be deemed, to exist’. (Lord Esher MR).
- 216.
Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22; [2002] 1 AC 215, [65].
- 217.
Christian Brothers case (n 166), [85] (Lord Phillips).
- 218.
Morrisons v Various Claimants (n 202), [32] (Lord Reed) citing Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] UKHL 48; [2003] 2 AC 366, [23] (Lord Nicholls).
- 219.
‘[Vicarious liability] plainly covers the situation where the employee does something that he is employed to do in a manner that is negligent’. Christian Brothers Case (n 166), [62].
- 220.
Hilton v Thomas Burthon (Rhodes) Ltd [1961] 1 WLR 705, 709 (Diplock J). Older cases use the formulation “frolic of their own” to denote the employees radical departure from the duties assigned to them for own motives which severs the link of vicarious liability, stemming from a formulation in Joel v Morrison (1834) 172 ER 1338, 1339: ‘The master is only liable where the servant is acting in the course of his employment. If he was going out of his way, against his master’s implied commands, when driving on his master’s business, he will make his master liable; but if he was going on a frolic of his own, without being at all on his master’s business, the master will not be liable’ (Parke B).
- 221.
Nottingham v Aldridge [1971] 2 QB 739, 747.
- 222.
Nancollas v Insurance Officer [1985] 1 All ER 833, 838.
- 223.
Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978, s 6(1).
- 224.
Or rather the Scots Law of Reparation, as delict is said to be more narrow, since it excludes nuisance or strict liability. Delict is used here though to denote the widely known label for damages for civil wrongdoing that is known across the globe in legal jargon, and is most applicable to our case of negligence.
- 225.
Culpa tenet suos auctores, see Stewart (1991).
- 226.
Baird v Hamilton (1826) 4 S. 790, 799 (Lord Robertson).
- 227.
See for example Kirby v National Coal Board [1958] SC 514, 532.
- 228.
See Grieve v Brown (1926) SLT 498, 501 (Lord Sands).
- 229.
Mackin v S V Drumgath Parish and The RCB and Anor [2007] NIQB 118, [17].
- 230.
See for example Hunter v Department for the Regional Development for Northern Ireland [2008] NIQB 88, [10–13] where the same authorities are applied, or Bank of Ireland v McLaughlin [2015] NIQB 85, [37].
References
Adam K, Booth W (2017) In London, black cabs win a battle against Uber. But is the war over? Washington Post. https://tinyurl.com/y9hatwug. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Ainsworth J (2017) Gig economy. House of Lords Library. Briefing, p 7
Bales K, Bogg A, Novitz T (2018) ‘Voice’ and ‘choice’ in modern working practices: problems with the Taylor review. Indus Law J 48(1):46–75
Bennhold K (2017) On London’s streets, black cabs and Uber fight for a future. The New York Times. https://tinyurl.com/qsdt4uu. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Bergin T (2017) Exclusive—loophole allows Uber to avoid UK tax, undercut rivals. https://tinyurl.com/ya6d4mav. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Bohic C (2018) Les chauffeurs Uber alaries: c’est non pour les prud ‘hommes’ (‘Employed Uber drivers with a right to salary: not for the labour court’) IT Espresso. https://www.itespresso.fr/chauffeurs-uber-salaries-non-prud-hommes-183124.html. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Bolt (2020) Bolt in London. https://bolt.eu/en/cities/london/. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Business Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee of the House of Commons (2016) The digital economy (second report of session 2016–17). HC 87, 18
Butcher L (2018) Taxi and private hire vehicle licensing in England. House of Commons Briefing Paper, CBP, p 2005
Butler S (2018) Uber loses appeal over driver employment rights. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/dec/19/uber-loses-appeal-over-driver-employment-rights. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Coghlan A (2018) Delivery giant Deliveroo is now facing a parliamentary inquiry. Eater London. https://london.eater.com/2018/6/19/17479234/deliveroo-parliamentary-inquiry-mp-frank-field-gig-economy. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Commons Select Committee (2017) Uber, Deliveroo, Hermes and Amazon questioned on ‘gig economy’. UK Parliament. https://tinyurl.com/ya76xjyx. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Department for Transport (2019) Government response; Report of the Task and Finish Group on Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Licensing: Moving Britain ahead 8. https://tinyurl.com/ydgpcw9l. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Di Gennaro V, Pavone A (2018) Italian labour court hands down landmark decision on Foodora case with potentially far-reaching implications for any company active in Italy’s growing Gig economy. Global Workplace Insider. https://tinyurl.com/ya8ysv6n. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Dudley G, Bannister D, Schwanen T (2017) The rise of Uber and regulating the disruptive innovator. Political Quarterly 88(3):492–500
Ferrari N (2016) Saving the black cab: why black cabs are vital to London’s economy and identity. Policy Exchange 53. https://policyexchange.org.uk/publication/saving-the-black-cab/. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Gett (2020) Gett. London taxi. https://gett.com/uk/city/london/. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Grafton-Green P (2018) London taxi protest: Black cab drivers stage demo against TfL and Uber. Evening Standard. https://tinyurl.com/yawmhfam. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Hatzopoulos V (2018) The collaborative economy and EU Law. Hart Publishing, Oxford
Johnson M (2020) Rowing back on vicarious liability. LSG 117(14):30
Johnston C (2016) Uber drivers win key employment case. BBC News. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37802386. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Kabbee (2020) Surprisingly Cheap Airport Rides Whenever You Decide to Go. https://www.kabbee.com/. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Kapten (2020) Kapten UK. https://www.kapten.com/uk/. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Katwala A (2019) From Bolt to Kapten: Uber’s London rivals are plotting its downfall. Wired. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/uber-alternatives-london-bolt-kapten. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Lanxon N (2019) Is this the end of the road for Uber in London? Washington Post. https://tinyurl.com/y9humlvu. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Local Government Association (2017) Taxi and PHV licensing. Councillors’ handbook (England and Wales). https://tinyurl.com/y7v32a65. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
London Assembly, ‘Questions to the Mayor: Uber Accidents’ (May 16, 2019) available online at https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2019/9003. Accessed 24 Apr 2020
Marique E, Marique Y (2018) Uber in London: Battle between public and private regulation. In: Renders D, Noguellou R (eds) Uber and taxis—comparative law studies Brylant Administrative Law. Bruylant, pp 163–200
Mayor of London (2016) Taxi and private hire action plan 2016 TfL. http://content.tfl.gov.uk/taxi-and-private-hire-action-plan-2016.pdf. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
BBC News (2019) Uber Birmingham: firm ‘likely’ to have licence Extended. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-51193314. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
BBC News (2019) Uber loses its licence to operate in London. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50544283. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
OlaRide (2020) Change is Coming, London. https://olaride.uk/. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Osborne H (2016) Uber loses right to classify UK drivers as self-employed. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/28/uber-uk-tribunal-self-employed-status. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Peel E, Goudkamp J (eds) (2014) Winfield and Jolowicz on tort, 19th edn. Sweet and Maxwell, UK
Phillips J (2018) Changes to where drivers can receive trips. Drivers Announcements. Uber Blog Blog. https://www.uber.com/en-GB/blog/changes-to-where-drivers-can-receive-trips/. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Ratti L (2017) Online platforms and crowdwork in Europe: a two-step approach to expanding agency work provisions. Comp Labor Law and Policy J 38:477–511
Stewart WJ (1991) Reparation: liability for Delict. W. Green
Task and Finish Group on Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Licensing (2018) Taxi and private hire vehicle licensing: Steps towards a safer and more robust system’. https://tinyurl.com/y3vrfwst. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Todolli-Signes A (2017) The ‘gig-economy’: employee, self-employed or the need for a special employment regulation? Transf Eur Rev Labour Res 23:200–205
Tofaris S (2018) Duty of care in negligence: return to orthodoxy? CLJ 77(3):454–457
Topham G (2016) Black cab’s driver’s Uber protest brings London traffic to a standstill. The Guardian. https://tinyurl.com/y93z7ro8. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Topham G (2019) ‘Uber loses London licence after TfL finds drivers faked identity’ The Guardian. https://tinyurl.com/w4y7c7n. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Topping A (2014) Uber: testing the app driving UK Black cab drivers around the bend. The Guardian. https://tinyurl.com/y9nfkqq9. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Transport for London (2016) English language requirement. https://tinyurl.com/ydyrcdjb. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Transport for London (2017) Licensing decision on Uber London Limited. https://tinyurl.com/yc6ry6n4. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Transport for London (2017) Skeleton argument of Transport for London’ in the Magistrates’ Court sitting at Westminster. http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-skeleton-argument.pdf. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Transport for London (2019) Private Hire vehicle drivers topographical skills assessments. Notice 06/19. http://content.tfl.gov.uk/06-19-topographical-skills-assessments.pdf. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Transport for London (2019) Uber London Limited found to be not a fit and proper to hold a private hire operator licence. https://tinyurl.com/wt47lqv. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Transport for London (2020) Transport for London guide to taxis and private hire. https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/taxis-and-minicabs/what-to-expect-from-your-journey. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Uber (2019) Update on Uber in London. https://www.uber.com/en-GB/blog/uber-in-london/. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Uber (2019) Where does Uber operate in the UK. https://www.uber.com/en-GB/blog/where-does-uber-operate-in-the-uk/. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Uber (2020) Find Uber in cities around the world. https://www.uber.com/global/en/cities/. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Uber (2020) Terms and conditions. https://tinyurl.com/y8xc4nmr. Accessed 22 Apr 2020
ViaVan (2020) Solutions. https://www.viavan.com/solutions/. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Walford J (2017) Uber have been refused a licence to operate in Swansea. Wales Online. https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/uber-been-rejected-license-operate-13976914. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Wall Street Journal (2014) The London taxi challenge. http://graphics.wsj.com/london-taxi-challenge/. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Walton CT, Armitage M, Cooper R, Hyde R, Kramer P, Todd S (eds) (2018) Charlesworth and Percy on negligence, 14th edn. Sweet and Maxwell, UK
Watts J (2018) Gig economy: Theresa May promises to improve conditions for millions of workers. Independent. https://tinyurl.com/y9tgv6c4. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Wheely (2020) https://wheely.com/en?gclid=Cj0KCQiAvc_xBRCYARIsAC5QT9miEhQruj9Fb4Q3pkU7tcYyaK_Cs8ikL7Zsn0gsRRJG62wHbHyn6dQaAppMEALw_wcB. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Witness statement of Helen Kay Chapman (2018) Westminster Magistrates Court. http://content.tfl.gov.uk/helen-chapman-first-witness-statement-march.pdf. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Xooox (2020) What is xooox and Why is It Here?. https://xooox.co.uk/about/. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Amaxopoulou, M., Durovic, M., Lech, F. (2021). Regulation of Uber in the UK. In: Ayata, Z., Önay, I. (eds) Global Perspectives on Legal Challenges Posed by Ridesharing Companies. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7035-3_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7035-3_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-15-7034-6
Online ISBN: 978-981-15-7035-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)