Key Facts
- •Uber Britannia Limited (UBL) sought declaratory relief concerning statutory interpretation of Part II of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (the 1976 Act).
- •The central question was whether a licensed operator accepting a booking under the 1976 Act is required to enter a principal contractual obligation with the passenger.
- •UBL argued 'yes,' supported by Bolt and the App Drivers and Couriers Union (ADCU), while Veezu Holdings Limited and D.E.L.T.A Merseyside Limited opposed.
- •Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council remained neutral but provided evidence.
- •The case considered the relationship between the 1976 Act and the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 (the 1998 Act), particularly the Divisional Court's decision in Uber London Limited v Transport for London [2021] EWHC 3290 (Admin).
Legal Principles
The modern approach to statutory interpretation is to have regard to the purpose of a particular provision and to interpret its language, so far as possible, in the way which best gives effect to that purpose.
Uber BV and others v Aslam and others [2021] UKSC 5 at [70]
Every contract for the hire of a private hire vehicle is deemed to be made with the operator who accepted the booking, whether or not they provided the vehicle.
Section 56(1) of the 1976 Act
The purpose of the 1976 Act is the protection of the public (passengers).
St Albans District Council v Taylor [1991] RTR 400, 403A—B
'Operate' focuses on the antecedent arrangements under which a vehicle is provided, not the provision of the vehicle itself.
Bromsgrove District Council v Powers (unreported) 16 July 1998
Outcomes
The court held that a licensed operator accepting a booking under Part II of the 1976 Act is required to enter into a principal contractual obligation with the passenger.
The court's interpretation aligns with the public safety purpose of the 1976 Act, supported by the wording of the Act, particularly section 56(1), and the comparable interpretation of the 1998 Act in Uber London Limited v Transport for London. The deeming provision in section 56(1) clarifies the operator's primary responsibility even when subcontracting.