United Trade Action Group Ltd & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v Transport for London & Anor

Public authorities formulating wide-ranging transport policies must consider the effects on every materially affected class of road user. Taxis, as public transport with a distinctive legal and policy status, cannot be treated as ordinary motor traffic without addressing that status, the established bus-lane policy and the needs of passengers who depend on taxis.

The public sector equality duty applies when high-level policies and guidance are formulated, not only when individual schemes are implemented. A rigorous, conscientious assessment is required. A clear policy representation may create a substantive legitimate expectation, which can be frustrated only where the authority demonstrates an overriding public interest. Emergency circumstances do not remove those requirements. Measures based on conjecture, inadequate evidence and unexamined adverse impacts may also be irrational.

The claimants, representative bodies for London hackney-carriage drivers, brought two consolidated judicial review claims against the Mayor of London and Transport for London. They challenged the London Streetspace Plan, TfL’s Interim Guidance to Boroughs and the A10 traffic management order restricting motor traffic on parts of Bishopsgate and Gracechurch Street during weekdays.

The challenges alleged failure to consider relevant matters, breach of the public sector equality duty, disproportionate interference with property rights, breach of legitimate expectation and irrationality. The court also considered whether taxi licences constituted possessions under A1P1 and whether the A10 Order complied with statutory traffic-management duties.

1. Ground 1. In formulating the Plan and Guidance, the Mayor and TfL were required to consider the impact on all materially affected road users, including taxis and their passengers. The legal and policy status of taxis as public transport, their role in accessible transport, and the Bus Lane Policy were obviously material. The Plan and Guidance failed to address those matters and were unlawful. The A10 Order was different: TfL had considered taxi access, the option of allowing taxis and buses through the corridor, the network-management duty and impacts on disabled users. Ground 1 therefore failed for the A10 Order.
2. Ground 2. Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 applied to the Plan and Guidance as well as the A10 Order. The Plan was announced without an equality assessment. The Guidance’s general references to vulnerable people and equality did not amount to rigorous and conscientious consideration of the particular disadvantages faced by elderly and disabled people dependent on taxis. The A10 equality impact assessment understated serious risks, proposed inadequate mitigation and read as a justification of a predetermined decision. Ground 2 succeeded.
3. Ground 3. The economic benefits of taxi and driver licences were possessions for A1P1 purposes. The A10 Order and similar traffic orders were capable of being controls on the use of those possessions. However, the claimants had not established the necessary interference or economic loss on the evidence and formulation of the claim. The ground therefore failed, although the court considered hypothetically that widespread unnecessary restrictions causing established loss would have been disproportionate.
4. Ground 4. The Bus Lane Policy represented to taxi drivers as a class that taxis would be permitted to use TLRN bus lanes, including for pick-up and set-down, unless their inclusion caused significant bus delay or materially worsened road-user safety. The Plan, Guidance and A10 Order frustrated that expectation without the policy being considered or withdrawn and without proof of an overriding public interest. Ground 4 succeeded.
5. Ground 5. The measures were based on conjecture, outdated modelling and inadequate consideration of reduced traffic and taxi use during the pandemic. The decision-making was seriously flawed and the treatment of taxis was irrational. The claims were allowed on Grounds 1 in part, 2, 4 and 5. Quashing orders were made in respect of the Plan, Guidance and A10 Order, subject to the arrangements described for the pending appeal.

The judgment was a first-instance decision. The court stated that the defendants intended to appeal and allowed time for the Plan, Guidance and A10 Order to be reconsidered provisionally while any appeal was pursued.