| Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| Uber - Delta/Veezu hearing Supreme Court 2nd July 2025 http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=41591 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Sussex [ Tue Jul 01, 2025 6:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Uber - Delta/Veezu hearing Supreme Court 2nd July 2025 |
D.E.L.T.A. Merseyside Limited and another (Respondents) v Uber Britannia Limited (Appellant) 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. Date of issue 12 August 2024 Judgment appealed EWCA Civ 802 https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2024/802.html Justices Lord Reed Lord Briggs Lord Leggatt Lord Stephens Lady Simler Hearing dates Start date 2 July 2025 End date 2 July 2025 |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Tue Jul 01, 2025 6:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Uber - Delta/Veezu hearing Supreme Court 2nd July 2025 |
The anoraks among us should be able to follow the hearing live tomorrow (02/07/25). https://supremecourt.uk/ No doubt, given the huge amount of money the UK trade has given to the Delta/Veezu fund, they will be represented by Coco the Clown. |
|
| Author: | edders23 [ Tue Jul 01, 2025 7:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Uber - Delta/Veezu hearing Supreme Court 2nd July 2025 |
Sussex wrote: The anoraks among us should be able to follow the hearing live tomorrow (02/07/25). https://supremecourt.uk/ No doubt, given the huge amount of money the UK trade has given to the Delta/Veezu fund, they will be represented by Coco the Clown. oh I do hope so 
|
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Wed Jul 02, 2025 7:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Uber - Delta/Veezu hearing Supreme Court 2nd July 2025 |
I watched a fair bit of the hearing today, or listened to it more to the point, and as a proud taxi/PH anorak I found it quite interesting. Three top KCs arguing their points, and the Lords/Lady interrupting time after time. It's quite clear that taxi/PH law is very alien to the Justices. Who will win, heaven only knows. For what it's worth (in this matter diddy squat), I much preferred the Uber submission. If Delta/Veezu win, then the taxi/PH trade basically stays the same. If Uber wins, then things will change. That is until, IMO, the government steps in and changes things back to how they currently are. 
|
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Thu Jul 03, 2025 7:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Uber - Delta/Veezu hearing Supreme Court 2nd July 2025 |
The hearing can be viewed via the Supreme Court site, both morning and afternoon sessions. https://supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2024 ... h-hearings |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Wed Jul 23, 2025 11:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Uber - Delta/Veezu hearing Supreme Court 2nd July 2025 |
According to the Supreme Court’s website the judgement is due on the 29th July. Only four weeks since the hearing. 
|
|
| Author: | edders23 [ Wed Jul 23, 2025 4:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Uber - Delta/Veezu hearing Supreme Court 2nd July 2025 |
Sussex wrote: According to the Supreme Court’s website the judgement is due on the 29th July. Only four weeks since the hearing. supreme court judges are like ents it takes a long time to consider and weigh the information |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Wed Jul 23, 2025 6:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Uber - Delta/Veezu hearing Supreme Court 2nd July 2025 |
edders23 wrote: Sussex wrote: According to the Supreme Court’s website the judgement is due on the 29th July. Only four weeks since the hearing. supreme court judges are like ents it takes a long time to consider and weigh the information Just had a look at the timings for the London version, so to speak. That took the court seven months from hearing to judgment. Now, perhaps part of the reason this version is coming to judgment within a calendar month is that two of the Justices sitting on this version also sat on the London version. |
|
| Author: | StuartW [ Wed Jul 23, 2025 6:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Uber - Delta/Veezu hearing Supreme Court 2nd July 2025 |
And here was me thinking I'd have time to catch up with the videos of the hearings  But if I've only got another few days...  Normally haven't got the attention span for that kind of thing anyway 
|
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Wed Jul 23, 2025 6:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Uber - Delta/Veezu hearing Supreme Court 2nd July 2025 |
I watched a fair bit of it live, well, at least most of the Uber submissions, and a little bit of the Delta/Veezu submissions. As I've said, I was impressed with the Uber submission, but the Delta/Veezu submmisons also had merit. So in short I haven't got a f***ing clue how the court will go. That said, given the speed at which the court has come to a decision, part of me thinks they might just take the London version and add England and Wales.
|
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Tue Jul 29, 2025 10:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Uber - Delta/Veezu hearing Supreme Court 2nd July 2025 |
Uber lose their appeal. Driver Partners are here to stay. |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Tue Jul 29, 2025 11:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Uber - Delta/Veezu hearing Supreme Court 2nd July 2025 |
Full judgment. https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_20 ... 1941dd.pdf |
|
| Author: | StuartW [ Tue Jul 29, 2025 3:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Uber - Delta/Veezu hearing Supreme Court 2nd July 2025 |
That's certainly not the longest judgment But here's the Supreme Court's official press summary, which is slightly more digestible. But, as per the various legal caveats etc, it should ideally be read in the context of the judgment as whole, or at least the summary should be read via the link below. And at least I managed to correct my misspelling 'judgement' before posting this - I can never remember which one is which But the stuff below uses the spelling without the 'e', and presumably the Supreme Court has got it right  D.E.L.T.A. Merseyside Limited and another (Respondents) v Uber Britannia Limited (Appellant) https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/press ... -2024-0119 Justices: Lord Reed (President), Lord Briggs, Lord Leggatt, Lord Stephens and Lady Simler Background to the Appeal This is an appeal about the correct interpretation of the statutory regime regulating the provision of private hire vehicles (“PHVs”). PHVs, as distinct from traditional taxis, cannot ply for hire on the streets but are booked in advance through an “operator”. Uber (one of the parties to this appeal though Uber Britannia Limited, or “UBL”) is a well known PHV operator. The regulatory regime is set out in Part II of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 as amended (the “Act”). It regulates the PHV trade outside London (and Plymouth) by imposing a “triple licensing lock”: operator, driver, and vehicle must each be licensed by the relevant local authority. Historically, the PHV trade has operated in several different ways: the operator might contract directly with the customer as principal, or do so only as an agent for the driver, or the operator may merely arrange for the driver to attend the customer and leave the contract of hire for them to arrange among themselves. However, in another case, the Divisional Court interpretated the separate (though in some ways similar) regulatory regime for London as requiring operators not to accept bookings by any means other than by entering into a contract for hire as principal. On the back of that, UBL successfully requested a declaration from the High Court to the effect that the separate non-London regulatory regime (under the Act) is to be interpreted as imposing that same constraint on operators. The Court of Appeal disagreed. UBL now appeals to the Supreme Court. Judgment The Supreme Court unanimously dismisses the appeal. Lord Briggs, with whom the other justices agree, gives the judgment. Nothing in the Act expressly imposes the constraint contended for by UBL. Nor can it be said to be inherent or implied in the concept of accepting a booking, or necessitated by the regulatory purpose of the Act. Reasons for the Judgment All parties to the appeal agreed that Part II of the Act had to be construed as a whole, in the light of the relevant context. They were right to adopt that conventional approach to statutory interpretation rather than to argue by way of detailed comparison with the London regime: the Act is the earlier statute and in any event the decision of the Divisional Court would not bind the Supreme Court, even if the two regimes were identical [9-10]. The Act is essentially silent as to how a licensed operator may deal with persons seeking bookings, other than mandating that they keep records. The only provision of the Act that might be said to have anything to do with regulating how operators accept bookings is s. 56(1) [24-25]. It sets out that:
But s. 56(1) is clearly a deeming provision: it does not impose a requirement that operators actually do enter into a contract for hire (as principal), but insists that the law will treat them as incurring contractual liability once a contract of hire is made, regardless of the actual mechanics of the contract of hire (whether the operator contracts as principal, or agent, or the contract of hire is made by the driver) [26-27]. UBL also submitted that s. 55A of the Act (dealing with what is loosely termed “sub-contracting”), which refers to “the contract between the person licensed… who accepted the booking and the person who made the booking”, suggests that the initial operator must always contract for the hire as principal. That argument is also unconvincing: s. 55A was a deregulatory later addition to the Act – it cannot be used to discover an implied restriction in the Act as originally passed; it is directed at sub-operating/sub-contracting (and not necessarily sub-contracting in its ordinary legal sense) but the proposed restriction is said to apply generally; and the reference to “the contract” may well refer to something other than the contract of hire, such as a contract to use best endeavours to deliver a PHV to the pick-up location [22], [31]. Furthermore, the concept of “operating” or being an “operator” of PHVs is the subject of a precise statutory definition under s. 80 of the Act. It means “in the course of business to make provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings for a private hire vehicle” [14]. UBL contended that the concept and language of “accepting a booking” as used in the Act implies the acceptance of a contractual obligation to fulfil the booking. But that is little more than assertion [34]. Finally, UBL argued that their proposed restriction exists to protect the public in situations where a hire contract would never otherwise actually arise, such as if an operator acts as an intermediary and the PHV never turns up. But not only would that be to impose a significant restriction on the operation of the PHV trade, it would ignore the fact that the Act is founded on protecting customers via a quite different mechanism – the “triple licensing lock” regime [32-34], [36]. All of these arguments are further undermined by the fact that – as no party denied – the sole regulatory purpose of s. 56(1) is to generate “real world” liability for the operator [29]. S. 56(1) therefore only makes sense if the Act assumes that the historical range of models for operating private hire vehicles (ie including where the operator is an agent or intermediary) are permissible [30]. UBL’s proposed restriction would make s. 56(1) redundant [35]. The reasons for the judgment are further summarised at [36]. References in square brackets are to paragraphs in the judgment. NOTE: This summary is provided to assist in understanding the Court’s decision. It does not form part of the reasons for the decision. The full judgment of the Court is the only authoritative document. Judgments are public documents and are available at: Decided cases - The Supreme Court |
|
| Author: | StuartW [ Tue Jul 29, 2025 3:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Uber - Delta/Veezu hearing Supreme Court 2nd July 2025 |
This is the Echo's take on it - wish I hadn't bothered with this after reading it while doing the necessary - all it basically does is rehash everything, and then say Delta won, and Uber lost. In a nutshell  Delta Taxis beats Uber in 'monumental' court battle as '20% fare rise' avoided https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/li ... l-32157501 The Supreme Court ruling concludes a long-running legal case Delta Taxis has won a Supreme Court battle with Uber over private hire fares. The court's judgement ruled firms do not need to change their business models, a move which would have resulted in passengers paying VAT on fares, in a decision hailed as a major victory for customers and the private hire industry. App-based ride-hailing giant Uber had sought a legal declaration that would have meant private hire companies outside of London would have to pay added VAT. But the move was successfully challenged by Merseyside-based Delta Taxis, represented by the legal firm Aaron and Partners. Delta argued that legislation dating back to 1976 allows for multiple business models under the private hire licensing regime, meaning not all operators are required to charge and pay VAT. Uber sought a declaration that private-hire firms enter into a contract with customers, meaning those operators would have to pay VAT. This came after Uber faced a 2021 Supreme Court decision which found its drivers were deemed as workers rather than agents. This meant that a 20% VAT fee was mandated on app-booked journeys. The High Court ruled in Uber's favour in 2023 but that decision was overruled by the Court of Appeal last year. Uber then appealed to the Supreme Court earlier this year. Throughout the Supreme Court hearing, Uber argued that requiring other private hire operators to enter into a contract with customers would be consistent with the public protection purpose of the legislation. In a judgment handed down on Tuesday, the Supreme Court dismissed Uber’s appeal and confirmed private hire firms are not legally required to adopt the same model - or enter into contracts directly with passengers. As a result, VAT will not be added to fares, avoiding a potential 20% price hike across England and Wales. Layla Barke Jones, dispute resolution partner at Aaron & Partners, represented Delta and believes the decision has saved the private hire taxi industry – saving thousands of businesses and securing many more livelihoods. She said: “This is a monumental decision, not just for Delta, but for all private hire taxi drivers and operators across England and Wales. Had this gone the other way, the cost and complexity of implementing VAT systems would have pushed many firms to the brink. “This ruling ensures that operators can continue to operate under established, regulated models that have been in existence since regulation was introduced almost half a century ago– such as the agency model without being forced into a ‘one size fits all’ model.” The ruling concludes a long-running case - ongoing since March 2022 - following an initial judgment in the High Court where the judge found that a private hire operator is required to contract directly with the passenger for providing the journey. However, that decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal in July 2024 which held that the licensing regime already provided for contractual liability for the operator without requiring operators to change their business models, in a case jointly brought by Delta Taxis and fellow operator Veezu. The Supreme Court ruling now cements the Court of Appeal outcome as the final say in law. Delta had warned any shift in the legal regime could have led to "seismic consequences" for passengers and firms alike. Before the proceedings began at the Supreme Court, an Uber spokesperson said: "Uber believes that there should be consistency throughout the UK to ensure all operators are required to have the same model.” An Uber spokesperson today told the ECHO: "The Supreme Court ruling confirms that different contractual protections apply for people booking trips in London compared to the rest of England and Wales. "The ruling has no impact on Uber's application of VAT, which has been upheld twice by other courts." |
|
| Author: | StuartW [ Tue Jul 29, 2025 3:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Uber - Delta/Veezu hearing Supreme Court 2nd July 2025 |
The Echo wrote: App-based ride-hailing giant Uber... As per usual, not sure if the likes of that description aids understanding of the whole thing, as opposed to making Uber sound more different to the others than it actually is. And interesting that the Guardian uses this description as regards Veezu - not sure if it's significant as regards the case, but I wouldn't have thought Delta's and Veezu's business models are that different  The Guardian wrote: That decision meant that operators would have to pay VAT at 20%, but the ruling was reversed by the court of appeal in July last year after a challenge by the private hire operators Delta Taxis and the platform Veezu.
|
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|