Court of Appeal rules that private hire vehicles are not plying for hire via smartphone apps

22/07/22

The Court of Appeal (Bean LJ, Singh LJ and Phillips LJ) handed down a judgment today in which they ruled – for the first time ever at Court of Appeal level – on the meaning of the term ‘plying for hire.’

The underlying claim was brought by the United Trade Action Group (“UTAG”), a body that represents the interests of black cab drivers. UTAG challenged Transport for London’s decision to grant a London private hire vehicle operator’s licence to Free Now. UTAG’s essential argument is that Free Now’s vehicles, as well as those of other major PHV operators such as Uber and Bolt, ply for hire. Only licensed taxis are allowed to ply for hire. If UTAG’s argument were correct, thousands of PHV drivers would be committing criminal offences on a daily basis in London.

The Court of Appeal rejected that suggestion. It upheld the decision of the Divisional Court below, which had itself followed the judgment of another Divisional Court in Reading BC v Ali [2019] EWHC 200 (Admin), in that case relating to the Uber app.

The Court of Appeal’s core conclusion was that Free Now’s app does no more than provide its customers with information that has long been provided by PHV operators: ‘We have three cars within five minutes of you’. The provision of that information via an app – as opposed to over the telephone – does not involve plying for hire.

The judgment is here.

Maya Lester QC and Tim Johnston appeared at the hearing instructed by Transport for London.

Marie Demetriou QC acted for Transport for London at an earlier stage of the proceedings.