Transport for London v Uber London Ltd

For the purposes of section 11 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998, a taximeter is a device designed to calculate the fare, not merely to record or transmit inputs used in a calculation performed elsewhere. A vehicle is not equipped with a device simply because its driver carries and uses a removable smartphone during a journey. The statutory prohibition is construed by its ordinary language. Consumer-protection considerations and the general purpose of the legislation cannot justify adding an undefined prohibition on automatic or technologically assisted fare calculations. An updating interpretation is inappropriate where the statutory language already accommodates modern technology. The principle against doubtful penalisation applies only where genuine doubt remains after full consideration.

Transport for London sought a declaration concerning the legality of the Uber system under section 11 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998. The Licensed Taxi Drivers’ Association and the Licensed Private Hire Car Association contended that private hire vehicles operating through Uber were equipped with taximeters.

The issue arose after related private criminal proceedings were adjourned and then withdrawn. The agreed facts were that a driver’s smartphone transmitted GPS, time and journey information, while Uber’s server outside the vehicle calculated the fare and returned the result. The central questions were whether the smartphone, alone or with the server, was a device for calculating fares and whether the vehicle was equipped with it.

1. Declaration granted. The Uber private hire vehicles were not equipped with a taximeter within section 11(3) of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998.
2. A device for recording and transmitting time and distance data is not, merely for that reason, a device for calculating the fare. The calculation was performed by Uber’s external server, not by the smartphone. The statutory language did not support treating the smartphone and server as one device.
3. The statutory purpose did not justify inserting a prohibition on automatic fare calculation. Such an approach lacked clear wording and would create serious uncertainty for ordinary methods of calculating private hire fares. The legislation protected the public through licensing and by preventing private hire vehicles from being mistaken for black cabs, but it did not prohibit technological improvements in fare calculation.
4. The updating-interpretation principle discussed in R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health [2003] UKHL 13 did not assist. Section 11 was expressed generally and applied to modern technology without extending its concepts to a new operating model that Parliament might have regulated differently.
5. Whether a vehicle is equipped with a device is a matter of impression. The focus is on what the vehicle is provided with, rather than what the driver brings into it. A removable smartphone carried by the driver, even if essential to the system, did not equip the vehicle. The statutory allocation of liability to the vehicle owner supported that conclusion.
6. A declaration was appropriate because there was a live and important dispute on agreed facts, the criminal proceedings had ended, and the regulator required authoritative resolution. There was no order as to costs.