Taxi Driver Online

Well this is interesting...

OK, still not entirely clear what the process here is - however it seems that someone who has formally objected to a successful application can appeal to the sheriff court, so that's not a judicial review process

This is from a Highland Council document:


https://www.highland.gov.uk/downloads/f ... sentations


So, as far as I can tell, only those who had lodged a competent objection can appeal in this way. So it's a bit of a catch 22, as far as I can tell - if the vast majority of the objections were deemed incompetent, then they have no standing to lodge an appeal

So maybe this isn't the normal appeal procedure, but who knows? But it's not judicial review either, although the kind of arguments being adduced sound like judicial review-type stuff. (It's a writ served on the sheriff court, thus the where an appeal would normally be lodged. A judicial review would go to the Court of Session, as far as I know.)

Anyway, the drivers/operators here (or whatever they are) certainly aren't the major players in Fife, and not even in the St Andrews area..


Fife Uber row heads to court as local taxi firms lodge legal challenge

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/fi ... challenge/

Three taxi companies are taking Fife Council to court in a bid to overturn the rejection of more than 400 objections to Uber's licence bid.

https://wpcluster.dctdigital.com/wp-con ... 40x564.jpg

Taxi drivers are preparing to take Fife Council to court over its controversial decision to grant an Uber licence.

Three of the region’s operators have lodged a legal challenge after more than 400 objections to the Uber application were thrown out on a legal technicality last month.

A writ served at Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court on Tuesday calls for the decision to be quashed.

It also asks for the application to be returned to Fife Council for reconsideration with all objections taken into account.

The appeal is brought by James Glen of St Andrews Taxis, Tahir Ali of New City Taxis in Rosyth, and Tariq Ali of Saline-based Taz’s Taxis.

https://wpcluster.dctdigital.com/wp-con ... 37x564.jpg

They argue the council made errors of law, relied on incorrect material facts, exercised its discretion unreasonably and acted contrary to natural justice.

The appeal follows a huge outcry across the Fife taxi trade after the licensing and regulation committee’s September 22 meeting.

Twenty-five of the 430 objectors were invited to address members.

However, before they were heard Uber’s lawyer pointed out none of the objections were valid because they were not signed.

Fife Council’s legal head Lindsay Thomson later apologised but said it was too late to fix the issue.

She also said no new objections could be received because the hearing process had begun.

Arguments for Fife Uber legal challenge

Uber Scot Limited applied in January to open a booking office in Rosyth

The application was granted by council officers under delegated powers without any objections being taken into account.

The operators’ writ, lodged by Edinburgh-based solicitors Nisbets, advances three central arguments.

• Two signed postal objections were submitted, challenging the treatment of all objections as unsigned.

• Objectors were denied a fair opportunity to respond. The appellants argue those present should have been allowed to answer Uber’s challenge and the committee should have exercised its powers to accept late objections.

• Typed names submitted by email could satisfy the signature requirement and should have been accepted.

It also refers to correspondence in which a council licensing officer expressly accepted an objector’s digital signature before the hearing.

The arguments have yet to be determined by the court.

Operators expect the initial legal challenge to cost around £5,000.

However, if they lose they could have to fork out up to £20,000 in expenses.

‘Abuse of the democratic process’

James Glen said: “Fife Council strung operators along for eight months, accepted their objections as valid and invited them to speak.

“Then, faced with Uber’s lawyer, it capitulated and shut them out.

“It then granted the licence without further ado, ignoring the stringent conditions set by other authorities on Uber licences.”

Mr Glen also claims Fife Council “failed both the taxi trade and the wider Fife public”.

“This was an abuse of the democratic process,” he said.

“Fife Council has apologised but an apology is nowhere near enough.”

While the operators expect Uber will ultimately hold a permanent licence in Fife, they say the eventual outcome does not excuse an unlawful process.

The campaigners have launched a fundraiser to help finance their challenge.

Fife Council has been approached for comment.

The crowdfunder is crawling towards the official £5,000 target, and is currently at almost £4,200, with 18 days to go.

And the crowdfunder page says: "Your donation will be returned if the campaign does not reach its initial target."

And yet they've gone ahead with the legal process anyway...

But that's presumably to do with the normal 28 days limit to lodge an appeal - the meeting to decide the application was on 22 September, so the Tuesday last week when the writ was served would have been 20 October.

So what will happen if the crowdfunder total isn't reached?

Could see someone donating an appropriate amount if it doesn't look like the total will be reached.

Maybe someone should launch a judicial review over the conduct of the crowdfunder

That sounds very like grounds for judicial review kind of thing, but I think that's also the kind of stuff stated in the licensing legislation as regards an appeal to the sheriff court

This was published by PHTM yesterday, and it's presumably the text of a press release. Not much different to the Courier's rehash above, but one or two extra bits and pieces...


COURT APPEAL CHALLENGES FIFE COUNCIL'S HANDLING OF UBER OBJECTIONS

https://www.phtm.co.uk/news/9382/phtm-n ... objections

A legal appeal has been served challenging Fife Council’s decision to grant Uber a booking office licence after hundreds of objections were rejected without being heard.

The writ, served on 20 October, asks Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court to quash the decision and return the application to Fife Council for reconsideration, with the appellants’ objections taken into account.

The appeal is brought by James Glen, Tahir Ali and Tariq Ali. It argues that the council made errors of law, relied on incorrect material facts, exercised its discretion unreasonably and acted contrary to natural justice.

Uber Scot Limited applied on 23 January 2026 for a booking office licence at Rosyth Business Centre. When the application came before the council’s Regulation and Licensing Committee on 22 September, 25 objectors had been invited to address members.

At the outset, Uber’s solicitor challenged the validity of the objections. Following legal advice and a lengthy recess, the committee rejected them. The licence was subsequently granted under delegated powers without the objectors presenting their case. The decision and subsequent council apology attracted coverage from STV News, The Courier and other outlets.

The writ advances three central arguments:

• Signed postal objections were submitted. Two appellants say they posted signed letters, challenging the factual basis for treating all objections as unsigned.

• Objectors were denied a fair opportunity to respond. The appellants argue that those present should have been allowed to answer Uber’s challenge, and that the committee should have considered allowing any signature defect to be corrected through its powers to accept late objections.

• Typed names could satisfy the signature requirement. The writ argues that the emailed objections were electronically signed and should have been accepted, citing electronic communications legislation and case law.

It also refers to correspondence in which a council licensing officer expressly accepted an objector’s digital signature before the hearing.

These are the appellants’ arguments and have yet to be determined by the court.

James Glen, one of the appellants, said: “Fife Council strung objectors along for eight months, accepted their objections as valid and invited them to speak. Then, faced with Uber’s lawyer, it capitulated and shut them out.

“It then granted the licence without further ado, ignoring the stringent conditions set by other authorities on Uber licences.

“Officers and councillors, under Cllr Tom Adams’s stewardship, failed both the taxi trade and the wider Fife public. This was an abuse of the democratic process.

“The Council has apologised, but an apology is nowhere near enough. Individual Fifers should not have to find thousands of pounds to put right the council’s failure to give them a fair hearing.”

Uber Fife’s campaign is focused on accountability and a fair hearing. It expects Uber ultimately to hold a permanent licence in Fife, but maintains that the eventual outcome cannot excuse an unfair or unlawful process.

The campaign has launched a CrowdJustice appeal with an initial £5,000 target to support the challenge through Nisbets Solicitors & Solicitor Advocates. Potential costs are estimated at up to £20,000.

Anyone who believes residents and businesses deserve fair treatment in council decisions is invited to contribute. You do not have to be a taxi driver or oppose Uber. A contribution of £10, or whatever people can afford, will help fund the challenge.

Fundraiser: https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/uber- ... RrCBq0UqAg

Campaign: https://www.uberfife.com/?fbclid=IwZXh0 ... ZiUyxAi-Ug