R (United Trade Action Group Limited and others) v Transport for London

The claimants sought judicial review of the Mayor's "London Streetspace" Plan, TfL's corresponding Guidance and a temporary traffic management order (the A10 Order) made under section 14(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Key legal principles applied included the need for a public authority to take relevant considerations into account when exercising discretion, the statutory network management duty (section 16 of the Traffic Management Act 2004), the public sector equality duty (section 149 Equality Act 2010), and the protection for possessions in Article 1 of Protocol 1 ECHR.

The court held that the Mayor and TfL failed to have proper regard to the distinct legal and policy status of licensed taxis and to the needs of disabled and mobility-impaired users when making the high‑level Plan and when issuing the Guidance; the public sector equality duty had not been properly discharged for the Plan, the Guidance and the A10 Order; the claimants' legitimate expectation that taxis would continue to have access to bus lanes (subject to established narrow exceptions) was frustrated without adequate justification; and the decision‑making was irrational and disproportionate in parts. The court found that A1P1 was engaged but declined to uphold a claim of unlawful "control of use" based on the A10 Order alone because the pleaded evidence was insufficient.

This is a first instance judicial review of three related measures introduced in response to the COVID‑19 pandemic: (i) the Mayor's London Streetspace Plan (a May 2020 public statement), (ii) TfL's Streetspace Guidance to London boroughs (15 May 2020), and (iii) the A10 GLA Roads (Norton Folgate, Bishopsgate and Gracechurch Street) (Temporary Banned Turns and Prohibition of Traffic and Stopping) Order 2020 made by TfL under section 14(1) RTRA 1984 (the A10 Order).

Parties and relief sought. The claimants were two taxi trade bodies (UTAG and LTDA). They sought quashing of the Plan and Guidance and of the A10 Order and other relief by way of judicial review, asserting failures to take into account relevant considerations, breach of the public sector equality duty, disproportionate interference with property rights under Article 1 Protocol 1, frustration of legitimate expectations and irrationality.

Issues framed. The court considered (i) whether the Plan, Guidance and A10 Order failed to distinguish taxis from general traffic and therefore omitted relevant considerations (Ground 1), (ii) whether the public sector equality duty (s.149 Equality Act 2010) had been complied with (Ground 2), (iii) whether the measures constituted a disproportionate "control of use" under A1P1 (Ground 3), (iv) whether substantive legitimate expectations (notably access to bus lanes) had been frustrated without justification (Ground 4), and (v) whether the measures were irrational (Ground 5). The court also considered statutory duties including the Mayor's transport duties under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and TfL's duties (s.154(3) GLA Act 1999), and the network management duty (s.16 TMA 2004).

Court's reasoning and findings. The judge found that the Plan and Guidance were made without sufficient regard to the distinct legal status of hackney carriages as a form of public transport and to their role in providing accessible door‑to‑door journeys for disabled people. The Recovery Strategy and the Plan did not engage with the long‑standing Bus Lane Policy permitting taxi access except in narrowly defined operational or safety circumstances. The Guidance treated taxis as part of "general traffic" to be suppressed and did not contain a sufficiently rigorous equality analysis at the high‑level policy stage.

As to the A10 Order specifically, TfL had considered alternatives (including permitting taxis alongside buses) and conducted modelling and an equality impact assessment which post‑dated some key decisions. The court accepted TfL had, for the A10 Order, considered the network management duty and the needs of disabled users sufficiently to rebut an allegation that those matters had not been taken into account, but nevertheless found the A10 equality impact assessment inadequate in substance.

The court held that A1P1 was engaged because taxi licences confer an economic interest, but the claim based on "control of use" failed on the evidence as pleaded (the A10 Order alone did not demonstrate the widespread, systemic deprivation alleged). The court concluded the Bus Lane Policy and long practice founded a clear and unambiguous legitimate expectation that taxis would be permitted in TLRN bus lanes except where specific operational or safety grounds required an exception; that legitimate expectation was frustrated without adequate overriding public interest justification. Finally, the court found the Plan, Guidance and A10 Order (in part) to be irrational and disproportionate, in that they pursued radical, long‑term transformation through emergency measures without adequate evidential foundation, failing to strike a fair balance between public objectives and taxi drivers' and passengers' interests.

This first instance claim for judicial review was allowed in part and dismissed in part. The court quashed the Plan and the Guidance and granted permission on Grounds 1 (in part), 2, 4 and 5, concluding that the Mayor and TfL had acted unlawfully by failing to have regard to taxis' distinct status and to the public sector equality duty, by frustrating the claimants' legitimate expectation about bus lane access without sufficient justification, and by adopting irrational measures. Ground 3 (a claim under Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR of unlawful "control of use") failed on the pleaded evidence in relation to the A10 Order alone, so that ground was refused. The court directed that quashing orders were appropriate so that the Plan, Guidance and A10 Order should be reconsidered, subject to a stay to permit any appeal and orderly review by the defendants.

Procedural history in this court: On 23 September 2019 Sir Ross Cranston ordered that claim CO/2995/2020, commenced as a statutory challenge, should be treated as if commenced by way of judicial review and consolidated with claim CO/2854/2020. He granted permission on grounds 1 and 4 in both claims but refused permission on grounds 2, 3 and 5. The renewed permission application on the refused grounds was listed and heard on a rolled‑up basis with the substantive hearing in November 2020.