Garry White & Ors v Uber London Limited & Ors

In a large group action, the court may order a preliminary issue where it is potentially dispositive, legally and factually manageable, and likely to promote proportionate and efficient resolution. Representative sampling may be ordered where individual knowledge is relevant across a large claimant group. The sample findings need not be automatically binding on every claimant; the court may determine the appropriate mechanism of extrapolation after deciding the sample cases.

Costs budgeting remains discretionary in claims exceeding the usual threshold. The court must weigh its advantages and disadvantages in the circumstances, including the parties’ financial positions, the risk of disproportionate costs, and the need for visibility of future costs exposure.

Some 13,000 London black cab drivers brought claims against Uber entities alleging unlawful means conspiracy arising from Uber’s private hire vehicle operator’s licence and its operation in London between 2012 and 14 March 2018. Related claims were brought by an alleged assignee of rights belonging to two private hire companies.

The defendants raised limitation arguments. The claimants relied on section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980, alleging fraud and deliberate concealment. The parties proposed a preliminary issue asking whether the alleged fraud or deliberate concealment was discovered, or could with reasonable diligence have been discovered, only after 25 or 26 June 2018.

The court also determined sampling, disclosure and the defendants’ application concerning costs budgeting.

1. Preliminary issue. The proposed limitation issue was ordered as a preliminary issue. It was potentially dispositive, would in any event require determination, involved a manageable mixed question of fact and law, and could be tried within a sensible period. The primary allegations of misrepresentation would be assumed to be true solely for that issue.
2. Sampling. A representative sample of 20 claimants was ordered, with 10 selected by each side. The sample findings would apply representatively, but would not automatically be extrapolated to every claimant. After judgment on the sample cases, the parties could address the mechanism of extrapolation and whether different findings were required for particular claimant groups. The court therefore retained the possibility that different categories of claimant might have different limitation outcomes under section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980.
3. Disclosure. The date on which claimants instructed lawyers was a potentially relevant disclosure issue because it might assist in determining actual or constructive knowledge for section 32 purposes. Privilege questions were left for later consideration. A broad request for searches of social media, WhatsApp and text messages was rejected as vague and speculative; the defendants were instead directed to prepare a more targeted model C request. A proposed clarification concerning documents obtained through associations or societies was unnecessary because it was already covered by the existing disclosure issue.
4. Costs budgeting. The court’s discretion under CPR 3.2 and Practice Direction 3D was unfettered. There was no presumption for or against costs budgeting in claims above £10 million. The court had to weigh the benefits and burdens of budgeting, including proportionality, equality of arms, the parties’ financial positions, and the claimants’ need for visibility of costs and insurance exposure. Although the claim was worth about £340 million and costs budgeting would add work and expense, the group’s 13,000 individual claimants had modest claims and would benefit materially from visibility of exposure. A costs budgeting order was therefore made.

Not stated in the judgment.