Uber says it has won a High Court bid to throw out two linked London claims, valued at around £340 million, over how it obtained a private hire vehicle operating licence. Reuters reported that account on 19 October 2026, in a wire carried by Devdiscourse. The claimants allege Uber gave "misleading and inaccurate information" to Transport for London. Uber denied the allegations, and argued that the claims were filed after the six-year limitation period. A copy of the ruling was not immediately available.
The two claims
The Commercial Court file sets out the same two claims. Garry White and others v Uber London Ltd is Mrs Justice O'Farrell's ruling of 22 October 2025. Uber London Ltd v Garry White is Mr Justice Birt's disclosure ruling of 12 June 2026. Both rulings were given in the Commercial Court at the Rolls Building, Fetter Lane. The defendants are Uber London Limited, Uber B.V. and Uber Technologies, Inc.
Claim CL-2024-000252 was issued on 2 May 2024 by about 13,000 London black cab drivers. Garry White is the lead name. The estimated loss is £199,395,000. Claim CL-2024-000366 was issued on 24 June 2024 by Justin Peters, as assignee of Kabbee Exchange Limited, which is dissolved, and Iride London Limited, which is in liquidation. The estimated loss is £141,000,000. Mrs Justice O'Farrell put the two claims together at about £340 million.
Those figures are the estimates on the court record. They are not an award.
The allegation
The claim is for unlawful means conspiracy. Uber is alleged to have misrepresented the nature of its business operating model, so the private hire operator's licence from Transport for London should not have been granted. The period under scrutiny is 2012 to 14 March 2018, when Uber changed its mode of operation. On the claimants' case, the licence let Uber compete with lawful services and undercut their tariffs. The June ruling records a further formulation: fraudulent misrepresentation relating to Uber's operating system, and an allegation that Uber would not otherwise have obtained the licence or competed for private hire journeys in London. The defendants deny the allegations in their entirety.
The time point
The claim forms were issued after the ordinary six years. Mr Justice Birt recorded that this is accepted. The claimants rely on section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980, which can postpone the start of time where there has been fraud or deliberate concealment.
The preliminary question was due to start on 25 June 2026. It asks whether the claimants discovered the alleged fraud or deliberate concealment, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it, only after 25 or 26 June 2018. Evidence in Uber's licensing appeal at Westminster Magistrates' Court was made public on 25 June 2018. The appeal judgment was published on 26 June 2018. For that hearing, the misrepresentation allegations were to be assumed true, and the court was to decide the time point.
Mrs Justice O'Farrell recorded that a limitation decision for the defendants could dispose of the whole case. The published judgments stop at the disclosure ruling of 12 June 2026.