Black cab drivers lose their High Court challenge against Uber's London operating licence after they claimed judge was biased against themhttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... cence.html• The black cab drivers had claimed Chief Magistrate Emma Arbuthnot was biased
• They referred to allegations that her husband has financial connections to Uber
• Their High Court challenge has now been defeated because of lack of evidenceBlack cab drivers have lost a High Court challenge against Uber's temporary operating licence in London, after they had claimed the judge who granted it was 'biased'.
Dismissing the taxi drivers' case, the Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett ruled that there were no signs that Chief Magistrate Emma Arbuthnot was biased in her granting of Uber's licence.
He added that the list of 'tenuous connections unearthed' by the United Cabbies Group Ltd fell 'well short of evidence that would begin to give a fair-minded observer even pause for thought'.
The UCG, which represents Hackney Carriage Drivers in the capital, made the complaint against the Magistrate.
It claimed the judge, who granted Uber a 15-month permit in June, was 'tainted by actual or apparent bias' when she granted the licence - due to her being married to Lord Arbuthnot who is alleged to have financial connections to the taxi firm.
However, they have now lost their challenge with the Lord Chief Justice ruling: 'The list of tenuous connections unearthed, no doubt as a result of deploying time and energy to internet searching, fall well short of evidence of links that would begin to give a fair-minded observer even pause for thought.
'It reminds one of the game of consequences or even the old song, "I danced with a man who danced with a girl who danced with the Princes of Wales".
'We think rather that the evidence relating to these matters illustrates the type of problem that could arise if there was a duty ''to check''.
'We are satisfied that this first ground of challenge is not made out.
'We mention finally the position of the Licensed Taxi Drivers' Association, on whose behalf Mr (Gerald) Gouriet QC advanced submissions.
'The particular points of concern to the Association focussed on any reconsideration should the decision be quashed and remitted to the Magistrates' Court for redetermination.
'In the event it is not necessary for us to deal with the points raised, other than to note that their criticism of Uber' conduct and the relevance of it when considering whether Uber was a fit and proper person to hold a London PHV operator's licence has been fully responded to by both Uber and Transport for London.'
Responding to an article printed in the Observer which aired Lord Arbuthnot's connections, a spokesman for the judiciary said: 'Chief Magistrate Arbuthnot did not know the Qatar 'Investment Authority for which her husband had acted as an adviser was a shareholder in Uber or had any links with Uber.
'Lord Arbuthnot was not aware that the Qatar Investment Authority was a shareholder in Uber or that it had any links to Uber.
'This is the first time that such a connection has been brought to the Chief Magistrate's attention.'
The spokesman added: 'It is essential that judges not only are, but are seen to be, absolutely impartial.'
Uber's licence had been granted on a 'probationary' basis at Westminster Magistrates' Court in June last year after Transport for London (TfL) refused to renew it amid safety concerns.
Chief Magistrate Arbuthnot issued the shorter licence with stringent conditions after concluding the firm had made 'rapid and very recent' changes.
In her ruling, she was critical of the firm, saying its failure to inform police of criminal allegations 'lacked common sense' and that it had painted a 'false picture' of its processes.
But the judge said in August she would not hear any further cases involving the taxi-hailing app after a newspaper article alleged there were financial connections between her husband, Lord Arbuthnot, and Uber.
At a hearing in London earlier this month, lawyers for UCG acknowledged the judge was unaware of any such links but said she should have 'checked for any potential conflicts of interest' before making her decision on Uber's licence.
They also argued that the decision was not open to her because Uber did not meet the 'fit and proper person' criteria necessary for holding a licence.
Robert Griffiths QC, for UCG, told Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett and Mr Justice Supperstone that it was 'significant' the judge did not say she was 'satisfied' the taxi firm met the criteria.
He added: 'In our submission, what the learned Judge has done is to grant a temporary licence to (Uber) on the basis that it may become a fit and proper person.'
Lawyers for Uber said the alleged connection between Lord Arbuthnot and Uber was 'at best extremely tenuous' and the judge was unaware of it.
They also argued the judge applied the correct test and did make a finding the firm was fit and proper to hold the licence.
Philip Kolvin QC said: 'The court will have noted that the issue of Uber's fitness received the most exhaustive consideration both by its regulator, TfL and by the judge.
'The attack on the judge's impartiality and decision-making by non-parties to the appeal, who also happen to be trade competitors of Uber, is without substance and should be rejected.'
Uber's application for a five-year licence was rejected by TfL in September 2017.
TfL had a number of concerns with the firm, including failure to report criminal allegations to the police and the use of technology to thwart regulators outside the UK.
Chief Magistrate Arbuthnot issued the shorter licence with stringent conditions after concluding the firm had made 'rapid and very recent' changes.
In her ruling she was critical of the firm, saying its failure to inform police of criminal allegations 'lacked common sense' and that it had painted a 'false picture' of its processes.
Following the article in the Observer newspaper in August, she assigned a licensing appeal by Uber which she was due to hear in Brighton to another judge and said she would not sit in future cases involving the firm.
In a statement issued at the time, a spokesman for the judiciary said: 'Chief Magistrate Arbuthnot did not know the Qatar Investment Authority for which her husband had acted as an adviser was a shareholder in Uber or had any links with Uber.
'Lord Arbuthnot was not aware that the Qatar Investment Authority was a shareholder in Uber or that it had any links to Uber.
'This is the first time that such a connection has been brought to the Chief Magistrate's attention.'
The spokesman added: 'It is essential that judges not only are, but are seen to be, absolutely impartial.'
Lord Burnett and Mr Justice Supperstone also heard submissions from TfL and the Licensed Taxi Drivers' Association, who previously made representations to Chief Magistrate Arbuthnot.
In a statement after the hearing, an Uber spokeswoman said: 'We've made lasting changes to our business over the last year and a half.
'We've introduced new safety features in the app for riders and better protections for drivers.
'Since the court ruling in June we have launched emergency assistance so riders can connect directly with the emergency services through the app.
'This is one of a series of improvements we're making for both passengers and drivers, and we continue to listen, learn and improve.'
Login
Register
FAQ
