Uber Wins Case to Continue Operating in London

Must Read

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions,...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by...

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Follow us

The Transport for London Authority, which has the statutory responsibility for granting of all Private Hire Vehicle licences, had initially refused the renewal of Uber London Limited’s license. In the case of Uber London Limited v. Transport for London, the court held that Uber will continue to hold the licence to operate in the city. 

Background 

Uber holds the licence in London under the tag of Private Hire Vehicle (PHV) licence. The London Taxi Drivers Association was also added as an interested party to the suit. The court was faced with a few main issues, whether Uber is fit to hold the PHV licence and if fit, should there be special conditions imposed on Uber London Limited. In addition to these two issues, the duration of the licence was also deliberated upon. 

Arguments 

The licence was denied from being renewed due to various counts of improper management by Uber London Limited. The driver Photo fraud issue was the top issue which the authorities have been battling. In addition to this, three Uber drivers were accused of committing sexual assault on passengers, but Uber delayed their deactivation and did not issue an explanation. Further, Uber is accused of regulatory breaches and ‘below the standard’ IT Services.

Uber has over 45000 drivers and singularly caters to over 3 million Londoners. The risks of such a big business model are huge but Uber has categorically tried to enhance the security checks and the manual balances. Uber agreed to the condition by the court that it will take further steps to better the entire process for its passengers and the state. 

Court’s Opinion 

The court before which the appeal was brought to stated its opinion on allowing Uber to continue its services. Judge Tanweer Ikram said that though Uber has had “historical failings”, the company has tried to undo its shortcomings and rectify its misdeeds. There has also been a provision set for Uber to monitor its operations and an oversight to be submitted by a Board of Directors. 

Court’s Decision 

The decision of the Westminster magistrate Court granted Uber an 18-month provisional licence to continue operating in London. The licence renewal was backed by several conditions that the court laid down for compliance. The company will have to satisfy all the conditions in order to continue its operations in the city of London.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -