London black cab drivers’ long-running claims against Uber have been ruled time-barred after the High Court concluded that the claimants could have discovered the alleged wrongdoing more than six years before they began proceedings.
What did the High Court decide?
In White and others v Uber London Limited and others [2026] EWHC 2651 (Comm), handed down on 19 October 2026, Mr Justice Birt considered a preliminary issue concerning limitation. The proceedings were brought by nearly 13,300 individual black cab drivers and Justin Peters, who is pursuing claims assigned to him by two companies previously involved in London private-hire services.
The court was asked whether the claimants discovered, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered, the alleged fraud or deliberate concealment only after 25 or 26 June 2018. The judge answered “no”, concluding that the alleged matters could have been discovered earlier and more than six years before the first claim form was issued.
The result is that the claims are time-barred. The court’s determination was limited to this preliminary issue. The underlying allegations of unlawful means conspiracy were denied by Uber and were not determined as findings of liability in this judgment.
What are the claims about?
The claimants allege that Uber conspired to cause them loss through unlawful means between mid-2012 and 14 March 2018. Their pleaded case includes alleged fraudulent misrepresentations and deliberate, dishonest non-disclosure to TfL concerning Uber’s booking and operating arrangements and its use of certain technologies.
In broad terms, the drivers contend that Uber would not have obtained a private-hire operator’s licence, and would not have competed with them for London journeys, but for the alleged conduct. Uber denies the allegations in their entirety.
A central background issue was how bookings made through Uber’s app were accepted. The claimants’ case was that the system did not comply with the statutory framework governing private-hire vehicle operators. Uber’s position, as described in the judgment, was that Uber London accepted bookings in accordance with the relevant legislation.
Why is limitation central to the case?
The claim forms were issued on 2 May 2024 and 24 June 2024. It was accepted that the ordinary six-year limitation period had expired before the claims were issued. The claimants therefore relied on section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980, which can postpone the running of limitation in cases involving fraud or deliberate concealment.
The claimants argued that they had not actually discovered the alleged fraud, and could not reasonably have discovered it, until after material connected with TfL’s refusal to renew Uber London’s operator licence became public in June 2018. That material included evidence and the judgment arising from the licensing proceedings in Westminster Magistrates’ Court.
The preliminary trial was designed to test that limitation question using 20 sample black cab claimants, together with Mr Peters. The parties agreed that if the claims were time-barred, the entire claim would have to be dismissed.
What evidence did the court consider?
The judgment reviews years of public debate and litigation about Uber’s London operating model, including correspondence with TfL, the 2015 “Taximeter” litigation, evidence in the proceedings commonly known as the Aslam case, and material from litigation in Toronto. It also considers the role of taxi and private-hire trade associations, media reporting and public campaigns.
The court examined what the sample claimants knew, what information they had encountered and what reasonable steps they could have taken to investigate. The evidence varied between individuals. Some had followed the issue closely or had read material expressing concerns about Uber’s compliance; others took little interest in whether a legal claim might be possible.
The judgment’s conclusion was not that every claimant had the same actual knowledge. Rather, on the preliminary issue, the judge found that the alleged fraud could have been discovered earlier through reasonable diligence. The court therefore did not need to find that every claimant had personally read the June 2018 material before reaching its limitation conclusion.
What does the judgment mean?
The immediate consequence is that the claims covered by the preliminary issue are time-barred. The judgment highlights the importance of limitation periods in complex group litigation, particularly where claimants rely on statutory provisions that postpone time because of alleged fraud or concealment.
For parties considering similar claims, the decision underlines that the court may assess not only when information was actually discovered, but also when it could reasonably have been discovered in light of public information, prior proceedings, industry communications and the steps available to the claimant.
The ruling should be read carefully: it addresses the limitation issue on the pleaded assumptions specified for the preliminary trial. It is not a final determination that the alleged conspiracy occurred, and the allegations against Uber remain allegations denied by the defendants.
Frequently asked questions
What was the outcome of the Uber black cab case?
The High Court held that the claims were time-barred because the alleged fraud could have been discovered more than six years before proceedings were issued.
Did the court find that Uber committed fraud?
No. The judgment decided a preliminary limitation issue. The alleged unlawful means conspiracy was denied by Uber and was not determined as a finding of liability in this judgment.
Why did the claimants rely on section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980?
They argued that the limitation period should be postponed because of alleged fraud or deliberate concealment, and that the relevant matters were not discoverable until after June 2018.
When were the claims issued?
The claims were issued on 2 May 2024 and 24 June 2024.