High Court dismisses £340m Uber claims brought by black cab drivers

The High Court has dismissed claims worth an estimated £340 million brought against Uber by around 13,000 London black cab drivers and the assignee of two former private hire firms, ruling that the proceedings were brought outside the applicable limitation period.

In White & Ors v Uber London Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 2651 (Comm), Mr Justice Birt considered a preliminary issue on limitation rather than the substantive allegations against Uber. The claimants alleged that companies within the Uber group engaged in an unlawful means conspiracy between 2012 and 14 March 2018, including by making fraudulent misrepresentations and deliberately withholding information from Transport for London (TfL) regarding Uber’s booking and operating systems and its use of certain technologies. They contended that, absent the alleged conduct, Uber would not have obtained a private hire operator licence and therefore would not have competed with them in the London market. Uber denied the allegations in their entirety.

The litigation comprised two linked claims. One was brought on behalf of approximately 13,000 black cab drivers seeking nearly £200 million in damages for alleged lost earnings. The second was brought by Justin Peters, as assignee of the rights of two former private hire operators, Kabbie Exchange Limited and Iride London Limited, seeking approximately £140 million. Together, the claims were valued at around £340 million.

The claims were issued in May and June 2024, outside the ordinary six-year limitation period. The claimants accepted this but relied on section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980, arguing that the alleged fraud and deliberate concealment could not reasonably have been discovered until after Uber’s licensing appeal hearing in June 2018.

Mr Justice Birt rejected that argument. The court found that the claimants could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered the alleged fraud or concealment and pleaded their claims more than six years before proceedings were issued. In particular, the judgment identified as significant a TfL decision letter dated 22 September 2017 setting out the authority’s reasons for refusing to renew Uber London’s operating licence. The letter was subsequently made public by the Licensed Taxi Drivers’ Association on 20 December 2017 and was itself relied upon by the claimants in formulating their case.

The claimants argued there were gaps in the information available from the decision letter and that they could not reasonably have advanced their claims until after Uber’s licence appeal hearing on 25 and 26 June 2018. The court disagreed, concluding that sufficient material was already in the public domain to enable the claims to be investigated and brought earlier.

As a result, the court dismissed all claims as statute-barred without considering the underlying merits of the allegations.

Following the ruling, Uber said it was pleased that the court had dismissed the claims “entirely at the earliest opportunity” and that the judgment had put the “legacy matters firmly in the past”. Representatives of the claimant drivers said they were disappointed by the outcome and were considering their options with their legal team.