Taxi Driver Online

London cab drivers plot £1bn class action claim against Uber

https://news.sky.com/story/london-cab-d ... r-11447093

The Licensed Taxi Drivers' Association has engaged Mishcon de Reya to examine a legal claim against Uber, Sky News learns.

London's army of black cab drivers are drawing up a stunning plot to sue Uber for more than £1bn - weeks after the ride-hailing app won a 15-month extension to its licence to operate in the capital.

Sky News has learnt that the Licensed Taxi Drivers' Association (LTDA), which has 11,000 members in London, has engaged the leading law firm Mishcon de Reya to explore the potential for a massive legal claim against Uber.

Sources said on Tuesday that if the case proceeded, the LTDA was expected to argue that all 25,000 black cab drivers in London had suffered lost earnings averaging around £10,000 for at least five years as a consequence of failings in the way Uber had operated.

At that level, the overall compensation bill could total £1.25bn.

People close to the situation cautioned that the LTDA could decide against proceeding with a formal claim and that there was no certainty that one would succeed.

The prospective legal action follows a decision last month by Westminster Magistrates' Court to overturn a ban on Uber imposed by Transport for London late last year.

Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, had argued that Uber was not "a fit and proper" holder of such a licence amid flaws in the way it conducted background checks on drivers and reported suspected offences by them to the police.

Since then, Uber has made wholesale changes to the way its business in London is run, including proactively reporting driver offences.

It has also appointed a slate of independent directors in an attempt to improve corporate governance.

If it proceeds, the LTDA's legal claim would be the most stunning salvo to date in a protracted battle between black cab drivers and Uber - two sides of an industry which reflect the ways in which technology is disrupting some of the world's most entrenched workforces.

Sources said the LTDA was in initial talks with potential funders of its claim, including Harbour Litigation Funding, which describes itself as the UK's largest provider of financing for legal cases.

Other firms are also understood to be holding talks with the LTDA, with the eventual funder receiving a slice of any compensation awarded.

In a statement issued in response to an enquiry from Sky News, Steve McNamara, general secretary of the LTDA, said: "We've been approached by a number of members to help them explore whether there would be grounds for a potential class action on behalf of all taxi drivers against Uber.

"We are in the very early stages of obtaining legal advice from leading law firm Mishcon de Reya on whether this is a possibility.

"We'll continue to do everything we can to support our members and taxi drivers across London by exploring every avenue to ensure they are treated fairly."

Responding to last month's decision to extend Uber's London licence, Mr McNamara said the company's appeal had exposed its "blatant disregard for TfL's regulations and public safety".

He added: "When TfL's lawyers grilled Uber on its handling of the 2016 data breach and its shocking failure to report sexual assaults to the police, Uber just blamed its tainted past on its former leadership.

"The justice system has failed Londoners today and let an aggressive multinational corporation win.

"Uber is not a fit and proper operator and the LTDA will be consulting its lawyers as to how we can hold it to account and keep streets safe for Londoners".

The continued ability to operate in London, one of its biggest global markets, was seen as vital for Uber as it proceeds towards an initial public offering of its shares in New York sometime next year.

Uber was understood to be unaware of the LTDA's prospective legal claim until the company was approached by Sky News on Tuesday morning.

The ride-hailing app is used by more than 3.5 million Londoners, with 45,000 self-employed drivers working for the company.

Like Deliveroo, Uber has found itself at the centre of a political firestorm over its treatment of its workforce amid calls for tougher regulation of the so-called "gig economy".

When Uber was stripped of its licence, pending the subsequent appeal, the QC hired by the company to fight the ban said: "We accept TfL's decision in September was the right decision based on evidence at the time.

"TfL had considerable concerns about [Uber's] fitness that warranted its refusal to renew.

"[This has] led to wholesale change."

Suspect this is all pie-in-the sky and will never get off the ground, but if it does succeed then I'll be consulting a lawyer very soon and will probably end up very rich, although I don't think I've even seen an Uber 'in the flesh'

Possibly, but at least by doing it this way they have nothing, other than time, to lose.

If the big boys take it on, then they are doing it as they expect to win and thus reap the rewards with the cabbies.

If they don't take it on, then they don't anticipate a windfall, but more importantly the drivers have lost nothing.

_________________
IDFIMH

London cabbies claim foul play against Uber

https://www.ft.com/content/e5830942-918 ... 80cedcc421

When Croatian footballer Mario Mandzukic scored his extra-time winner in the World Cup semi-final, he not only prevented the trophy “coming home” to England, he ensured the losing team’s players would not be coming in to a £217,000 bonus. But no English players are now trying to sue him for loss of earnings. So why do London’s black cab drivers — those self-professed experts on the beautiful game — think they have a legal claim against their nemesis: Uber?

Last week, the Licensed Taxi Drivers’ Association said it was seeking advice from law firm Mishcon de Reya about a potential class action against the US car-booking app. It suggested that London’s traditional cabbies had each lost £10,000 a year since they ran into competition from Uber in 2012.

However, the idea that Mishcon de Reya might think it legitimate to cry foul poses a bigger question: can businesses really sue competitors just for being competitive?

Initial reactions to the cab drivers’ claims have expressed scepticism — and a certain derision toward the precedents they would set. “Horse breeders . . . to sue the inventor of the internal combustion engine?” pondered one Financial Times reader, commenting on the LTDA move. Lawyers stress that disruptive technologies were perfectly legal then, and remain so today.

“Generally, the law is in favour of competition,” points out Adrian Magnus, partner at law firm Dentons. “There are significant laws to protect competition on price, innovation, service and quality.” Hence, bricks-and-mortar retailers cannot sue Amazon just because it offers lower prices and faster delivery. While some jurisdictions have specific laws on “unfair competition”, Mr Magnus notes this is more of a civil law concern, and there is no immediate equivalent under English law. “If a customer goes elsewhere, that’s business.”

In fact, as any World Cup video referee will tell you, there needs to be an obvious infringement for penalties to result.

Meriel Schindler, partner at law firm Withers, cites four examples where a company’s competitive behaviour might be deemed to break an existing law.

First, one company stealing another’s technology. Allegations of this nature kept Apple and Samsung in a seven-year patent dispute, which they only settled last month. In the case of taxi-hailing technology, though, “Uber’s clearly not doing that,” Ms Schindler says.

Second, one company passing off its goods or services as another’s. Nestlé spent years trying to prevent rivals from offering a chocolate bar in the same shape as its four-fingered KitKat — but last week lost an appeal over trademarking the “distinctive” shape. Uber’s taxis, however, do not pretend to be distinctive black cabs.

Third, one company poaching another’s employees, in breach of an ‘anti-compete’ clause. Advertising group WPP may wish Martin Sorrell, its former boss, was so bound now that he has left and started outbidding it for assets. Black cab drivers, by contrast, cannot be poached as they are all self-employed.

Fourth, one company winning a licence or contract in a process that has been run unfairly. In the UK, outsourcing group Serco has challenged the Ministry of Defence’s decision to award a fire service contract to its main competitor Capita, over aspects of the procurement process. But this is a legal challenge to the process, not to the other company involved. Uber does not control the London licensing process — as a move to revoke its licence in 2017 proves.

So, might the black cab drivers be better advised to pursue the licensing body, Transport for London? Some argue that the “knowledge” of routes they were required to learn, to earn the right to drive an “official” black cab, implied they were joining a regulated monopoly. By licensing Uber, TfL reneged on that implicit deal, the logic goes.

If there were to be such a claim, it would not be about competition but “quasi misrepresentation”, says Mr Magnus. He explains that such claims may arise if a business franchise is sold as the only one in a lucrative area, and then several others are licensed. But misrepresentation cannot be claimed if someone makes an assumption that turns out to be wrong. With London taxis, “where is the evidence to support that claim?” he asks. Cab drivers, like football’s penalty-seeking divers, may not feel much evidence is needed. Courts and referees generally do.

_________________
IDFIMH

It would appear from the Uber appeal they "Do control the London licensing procedure"

So HCs can take action against licensing authorities for allowing PH?



When the news broke I did think that TfL are a more obvious target for the LTDA than Uber, for failing in their statutory duties as regulator, for example, but can't really see any compo angle.

But if there was some sort of action against TfL, what a can of worms that would open up the length and breadth of the land

But suspect the LTDA just consulting with lawyers in the same way that anyone can about anything that takes their fancy, but with little or no prospect of actually getting anywhere.

And of course there will no doubt be law firms who could persuade the LTDA that they have a case, while in reality the only thing that would benefit would be the lawyers' coffers.

So maybe a bit like their meeting with the Met about Uber misleading the courts - the Met probably just felt duty bound to meet the LTDA rather than indicating any real possibility of prosecution.

But it all seem to demonstrate that the LTDA is quite adept at PR and generating news copy rather than meaning something is about to happen.

There would seem to me to be some parallels between this matter and Martin Allen's long running campaign about the s19 minibus licencing which has been covered elsewhere. The s19 was originally brought about by the unfair competition from the unlicenced minibus operators against the highly regulated PSV industry.

As we know that case has progressed through the offices of the European Commission and back to the UK government, and they have been told to bring all minibus operation into line with EU law. Now there are probably a few case under ECJ jurisdiction that have been brought under the guise of unfair competition and I'd suggest the Uber operation falls into that matter, especially as it could be claimed to not have complied with licence conditions for a number of years. I think the case of Glockner Ambulance was on similar lines and was quoted in Martin Allen's case. Similar UK cases were things like the "pink ladies" case listed and discussed on here a few years ago. A quick browse through the Court Cases database will show a few similar cases in UK courts. Basically if you don't comply with the regulations, it's unfair competition and you're nicked!

Basically, if Uber have operated outside their licencing conditions, it is unfair competition and falls foul of a number of EU directives which have been passed into UK law. Forger the case that we may be/are leaving the EU, we weren't when Uber started operating, and cases like this can be made retrospectively. the LTDA may well be onto a winner here.

They have admitted it, but is the fault their own, or do TfL share the blame?

But we wont have long to find out. If a big boy firm of lawyers take this on on a no win no fee basis, then I think Uber have a problem, however if they the big boys say no, then we all have the answer.

_________________
IDFIMH

these sort of cases aren't on no win no fee that's compo claims etc. I suspect that the LTDA will have to stump up about half a million to get this to court

_________________
Taxis Are Public Transport too

Join the campaign to get April fools jokes banned for 364 days a year !

The only up front costs are the insurance premium, which could be up to £100,000. That is to cover the third party's costs in the event the applicant loses the case.

The costs for any of the big boys will be on a no win no fee.

_________________
IDFIMH

Don't know the details of the minibus thing, but even if Uber were deemed to competing unfairly by the EU, I'm not so sure about the compo angle as far as 'victims' are concerned.

And essentially you're talking here about unfair competition arising from regulation, so to that extent Uber and the PH industry could just as credibly argue that the Knowledge of London is an impediment to competition, because presumably the vast majority of Uber customers would like the option to hire a car on the street.

By extension you could apply that to the whole country, particularly as regards HC licence quotas, and other less high profile issues like access to bus lanes.

As for compo, because a competitor is operating on the wrong side of the law, then that would make it look like a process benefitting only the better off. Could the average one-man-band, for example, sue the rest of the local trade because their drivers are wrongly categorised as self-employed?

The possibilities are endless

Can't see it coming to much, but if it does suspect it will primarily benefit those with a bit of financial clout who can afford to get involved in such things, thus other than the LTDA I doubt if there's much scope for any others in the trade to get involved.

Of course, it all depends on what precise legal grounds the LTDA are considering taking action under, but we haven't been told the grounds for action at this stage.

But which in turn is why I suspect we won't hear much more about it all.

The taxis and PH using bus lanes has already been subject to a fairly high profile case through the supreme court in the UK, the PH case lost.

Had forgotten about that one, but it's perhaps instructive as regards the present case - the European Court of Justice quite happy that HCs and PH fulfil different roles and thus no competition issues regarding bus lanes.

And looking briefly at the s19 thing, that seemed to be about the UK's non-compliance with EU law, but as far as I know there's no compo angle, even despite businesses losing significant sums as a consequence.

So to that degree even if Uber weren't complying with a different set of rules it's difficult to see how Uber's competitors have a case for compensation.

Of course, no doubt there are lawyers who could concoct some kind of case, but my non-expert opinion would be on it being unsuccessful.

Interesting 'exclusive' on TaxiPoint about London Cabbies 'launching' the multi-million pounds group action claim against Uber (below).

For a start, the word 'launch' seems to be overegging the thing a bit - the claim seems still to be at the largely speculative stage, and the aim at this point seems to be to get cabbies to sign up to the group action. So there's a website to that end, and also the these days obligatory Facebook and Twitter accounts, but these are still effectively dormant at this stage.

https://cabbiegroupaction.com/

But the website contains some interesting information, and as well as its aim of asking drivers to sign up and express an interest in the action, it also has a lengthy FAQ section. Which in turn provides the most concrete outline of the legal basis for the action thus:



Can't be bothered reading all the FAQs, but as well as law firm Mishcon de Reya there's also predictably a PR/communications/lobbying outfit involved called Newington Communications, and the other major external player is called Harbour Litigation Funding, which essentially seems to provide the funding necessary for the drivers to proceed with the claim on a no-win, no-fee basis.

But the claim depends on a minimum number of drivers signing up, so much of the FAQ seems aimed at addressing any concerns they're likely to have regarding privacy and financial information etc - even if the action did succeed, how the damages would be quantified is anyone's guess, but it looks like part of that process would involve individual drivers disclosing their private financial information, which I suspect would be a sticking point for many.

Which is perhaps why the size of the claim seems to have already halved from £1bn to £500m, although whether the gap here represents the legal fees/proportion of damages that would be paid to the litigation funders, I don't know

Also worth noting is that only London black cabbies are eligible, although if the claim were to succeed presumably London's traditional private hire trade and the trade outside the capital might also be expected to follow suit.

Still think that in legal terms though Uber's relationship with the taxi drivers is a bit indirect to justify a claim, but if it did succeed it would set one hell of a precedent, with ramifications far beyond the trade, I suspect.

But, as I said earlier, even though such group actions manage to bring together many small claimants to take action against big corporations and the like, it still looks like something that would primarily benefit relatively powerful groups like the LTDA and London cabbies generally. Can't see a chap working the ranks in Bridlington being able to bring an action against Wendy's Wheels because she ran an amber light blah, blah

London Cabbies launch multi-million pound group action claim against Uber

https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/single-pos ... ainst-Uber

London’s cab drivers are coming together as Cabbie Group Action to bring a potential group legal action against Uber worth over £500 million for damages and loss of earnings due to the alleged unlawful operation of Uber under the relevant statutory framework.

The Group Action will bring a claim in the High Court by licensed taxi drivers in London against Uber for loss of income on the basis that Uber has operated unlawfully under the relevant statutory framework between mid-2012 to at least the end of 2017, with the intention of causing loss to the licensed taxi trade.

Supported by leading law firm Mishcon de Reya, the claim is being officially backed by a wide variety of organisations involved in the licensed cab trade, including:

• Licensed Taxi Drivers’ Association

• Unite the Union

• United Cabbies Group

• London Cab Drivers Club

• TaxiPoint

• KPM Automotive

• Easyrentacab Ltd

• Colts Cabs Ltd

• Cricklewood Carriers Cab Company Limited

• Martin Cordell and Co

• Sherbet Cars

• Ubiquitous

With a third party funder in place, cabbies can join the claim knowing that their legal costs will be covered.

Cabbies are being encouraged to sign up to the claim by registering their interest on the website www.cabbiegroupaction.com.

Commenting on the claim, the LTDA’s General Secretary, Steve McNamara said, “We recognise that there needs to be a level playing field between minicabs and licensed cabs on London streets but we believe Uber has operated unlawfully, resulting in a loss of earnings for many qualified licensed cab drivers. It is vital that they are recompensed for their losses. Perhaps only then will licensed cabs and Uber be operating on an even footing, which we all would welcome.”

Unite the Union’s Mike Hedges said, “Unite is pleased to support Cabbie Group Action against Uber. Cabbie Group Action is important in winning back the losses that taxi drivers have suffered.”

Asher Moses, CEO and founder of Sherbet London said “Sherbet London fully supports this action and encourages all London taxi drivers to register via www.cabbiegroupaction.com. London taxis and drivers are an integral part of our transportation network, and an action like this reinforces the importance across all of London.”