Independent Workers' Union of Great Britain & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Mayor of London

The claim was a judicial review of the Mayor's confirmation of amendments to the Greater London (Central Zone) Congestion Charging Order 2004 which removed the congestion‑charge exemption for private hire vehicles except for those designated as wheelchair‑accessible. The claimants relied on indirect discrimination under section 19 read with section 29(6) Equality Act 2010, and on Convention rights (Article 8 ECHR, Article 1 of Protocol 1 and Article 14 ECHR). The court accepted the defendant had advanced a legitimate aim — reducing traffic and congestion in the Central Congestion Zone while preserving wheelchair‑accessible capacity — and that the decision‑maker had considered equality impacts and relevant expert forecasts (CEPA, the Integrated Impact Assessment).

The court applied the proportionality principle to the differential impacts on BAME drivers, part‑time (largely female) drivers and disabled passengers. It held the measure corresponded to a real need, was rationally connected to that aim, and was a reasonably necessary means to it; no less intrusive practicable alternative was shown. The court further held the changes did not give rise to an Article 8 interference for the two individual claimants and, even if Convention rights were engaged, any interference was justified. The A1P1 and Article 14 challenges likewise failed because the defendant had established objective justification and a fair balance between community interests and individual effects.

Background and parties. The claimants were the Independent Workers' Union of Great Britain and two private hire drivers. The defendant was the Mayor of London and the interested party Transport for London. The decision impugned was the Greater London (Central Zone) Congestion Charging (Variation) Order 2018 and its confirmation, which removed the exemption from the congestion charge for private hire vehicles save for those designated as wheelchair‑accessible, effective 8 April 2019.

Nature of the claim and relief sought. The claim was for judicial review seeking to quash the Confirmation Order (and consequential relief). Grounds were (i) indirect discrimination contrary to sections 19 and 29(6) of the Equality Act 2010 (BAME and female drivers, and disabled passengers), (ii) breaches of Article 8 ECHR and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (peaceful enjoyment of possessions) in respect of two individual claimants, and (iii) unlawful discrimination contrary to Article 14 ECHR.

Issues framed by the court.

• Whether the defendant could show the removal of the exemption was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim under section 19(2)(d) Equality Act 2010.
• Whether the measure interfered with the individual claimants' Article 8 rights or A1P1 rights and, if so, whether any interference was justified.
• Whether Article 14 applied and, if so, whether differential treatment was objectively justified.

Evidence and context. The judgment summarised the consultation and evidence base: CEPA modelling, the Integrated Impact Assessment by Mott MacDonald, consultation responses including an Oxera report for Addison Lee, and operational responses by major operators (Uber, Addison Lee, ViaVan). The court noted statistics that c.94% of private hire drivers are BAME, only c.525 private hire vehicles were wheelchair‑accessible, and forecasts that removing the exemption could reduce PHV entries and reduce overall traffic by about 1%.

Reasoning and conclusions. The court found the Mayor had a legitimate aim: reducing traffic and congestion while safeguarding wheelchair‑accessible capacity. The decision‑maker had considered relevant evidence and equality impacts. Applying a proportionality analysis (and recognising the electoral accountability and margin of appreciation of the Mayor), the court concluded the measure was rationally connected to the aim, reasonably necessary, and no realistic less intrusive alternative had been shown. The court held there was no Article 8 interference for the two individuals; on A1P1 and Article 14, the Mayor had established objective justification and a fair balance. The claim was dismissed.

The claim is dismissed. The court held that the removal of the congestion‑charge exemption for private hire vehicles (save for designated wheelchair‑accessible vehicles) pursued a legitimate aim (reducing traffic and congestion while preserving wheelchair‑accessible capacity), was rationally connected to that aim, and was a proportionate and objectively justified measure in light of the evidence and alternatives considered. The Measure did not amount to unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 nor breach Articles 8, 1 of Protocol 1 or 14 ECHR.