Garry White v Uber: High Court rules black cab drivers’ conspiracy claims are time-barred

The High Court has ruled that claims brought by nearly 13,300 London black cab drivers and a former private hire operator against Uber are time-barred, finding that the claimants could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered the alleged fraud and deliberate concealment before June 2018.

In Garry White and others v Uber London Ltd and others [2026] EWHC 2651 (Comm), Mr Justice Birt determined a preliminary limitation issue arising from claims alleging unlawful means conspiracy. The claims concern Uber’s entry into the London private hire market and its operating practices between mid-2012 and 14 March 2018.

The claimants alleged that Uber made fraudulent misrepresentations and deliberately withheld information from Transport for London (TfL) about its booking system and the use of technology designed to evade regulatory scrutiny. They contended that, absent the alleged unlawful conduct, Uber would not have obtained a private hire operator’s licence and competed with existing operators and black cab drivers.

Uber denied the allegations. The court was required to determine whether the claimants had discovered, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered, the alleged fraud or concealment only after 25 or 26 June 2018. For this preliminary issue, the pleaded allegations were assumed to have occurred, without any determination of liability.

The claims, issued in May and June 2024, fell outside the primary six-year limitation period. The claimants relied on section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980, which postpones the commencement of limitation in certain cases involving fraud or deliberate concealment until the relevant matters are discovered or could reasonably have been discovered.

Earlier regulatory findings proved significant

The court examined the history of concerns about Uber’s booking arrangements, including correspondence between industry representatives and TfL, evidence given in earlier litigation and the regulator’s decision not to renew Uber London’s operator’s licence in September 2017.

TfL’s decision letter, subsequently published in December 2017, concluded that Uber London had provided materially false and misleading information about how bookings were accepted through its app. It also raised concerns about Uber’s disclosure of its use of Greyball, software alleged to have been used to frustrate regulatory investigations.

Further allegations concerning Ripley, a tool reportedly used to restrict access to computer systems during regulatory visits, emerged in press reports in January 2018.

The claimants argued that evidence presented during Uber’s licensing appeal, together with the Chief Magistrate’s judgement handed down on 26 June 2018, supplied essential information needed to formulate their claims. They maintained that the earlier material contained gaps and did not provide a sufficient evidential basis for pleading fraud or dishonesty.

Mr Justice Birt rejected that argument. Applying the relevant principles under section 32, he held that claimants need not possess certainty or be able to establish that their claims would succeed. The question was whether they had sufficient knowledge of the essential facts to plead an arguable case of the relevant nature.

The judgement found that the information available by the end of 2017, particularly TfL’s decision letter, together with the January 2018 reporting about Ripley, was sufficient to enable the claims to be pleaded. The evidence subsequently made public during the licensing appeal added detail but did not materially change the position.

The court therefore concluded that reasonable diligence would have enabled the claimants to discover the alleged fraud or concealment before 25 June 2018. The claims were consequently time-barred, and the court answered the preliminary issue in Uber’s favour.

The ruling determines the limitation issue rather than the underlying allegations of unlawful means conspiracy. However, as the parties accepted that a finding that the claims were time-barred would require the entire action to be dismissed, the decision has decisive consequences for the proceedings.