header-logo header-logo

06 August 2025
Issue: 8128 / Categories: Legal News , Transport , Tax , Local government
printer mail-detail

Minicabs soar past Uber’s roadblock

Private hire vehicle companies have seen off Uber’s legal challenge to their business models, in a landmark Supreme Court decision

The court unanimously rejected Uber’s argument that private hire operators enter into individual contracts of hire with passengers, which would have resulted in VAT being charged on all fares, in DELTA Merseyside and Veezu Holdings v Uber Britannia [2025] UKSC 31. Consequently, the private hire companies can continue to operate as agents for their drivers.

DELTA had warned the extra 20% on fares would make them unaffordable for many passengers, with ‘seismic consequences’ for the industry as well as increased costs for the NHS, education authorities and other public bodies.

DELTA successfully argued that the regulatory regime outside London and Plymouth laid down in Part II of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 allows for multiple business models. The court agreed that, while Uber’s model does trigger VAT liability, competitors can lawfully operate using alternative structures that do not.

Layla Barke Jones, partner at Aaron & Partners, representing DELTA, said: ‘This ruling ensures that operators can continue to operate under established, regulated models that have been in existence since regulation was introduced almost half a century ago.

‘Private hire firms are vital in the communities, and are used frequently by those with disabilities, low-income households and older people who rely on taxis for essential journeys and to maintain their independence. If VAT suddenly had to be paid by all those people, the additional cost would have meant many simply choose not to travel at all, leaving some of the most vulnerable people in our society isolated.

‘A crisis has been averted.’

Nia Cooper, chief legal officer at Veezu, said the ruling ‘confirms that operators can continue to choose which business model they adopt to run their business’ and also ‘shows that British-owned businesses can stand up against global giants that attempt to use litigation as a tactic to shape the sector to suit their business model’.

Issue: 8128 / Categories: Legal News , Transport , Tax , Local government
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Commercial firm strengthens real estate disputes team with associate hire

Switalskis—three appointments

Switalskis—three appointments

Firm appoints three directors to board

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Six promoted to partner and one to legal director across UK and Ireland offices

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll