The Commercial Court has published its judgment in Garry White and others v Uber London Limited and others [2026] EWHC 2651 (Comm). It was handed down remotely at 10am on 19 October 2026. The answer to the preliminary issue on limitation is no, and the claimants' claims are time-barred. It was common ground that this will necessarily lead to the dismissal of the entire claim. For that issue only, the facts pleaded as the alleged fraud and concealment were assumed to have occurred, without prejudice to Uber's denial of the allegations in their entirety. The court made no finding on whether those allegations are true. Uber's account of the result, given when a copy of the ruling was not yet public, is already on TaxiFeed. Garry White and others v Uber London Limited and others
The decision letter
The result turns on Transport for London's letter of 22 September 2017 refusing to renew Uber London's private hire operator licence. The press release that day announced that TfL considered Uber London "not a fit and proper person to hold a private hire operator licence". It did not include any allegation that Uber had misled TfL about how its model worked. The letter itself became publicly accessible on 20 December 2017, when the Licensed Taxi Drivers' Association published it on its website.
In the letter, TfL considered that Uber London had "misled TfL in correspondence in 2014 as to the process by which bookings are accepted through the Uber app" and that the answers had been "materially false and misleading." TfL also considered that Uber London had not been "open and transparent with TfL about Greyball."
The claimants argued that the letter did not deal with whether Uber knew the statements were false, and that they could not have discovered the alleged fraud until a reasonable period after 25 or 26 June 2018, when the licensing appeal was reheard at Westminster Magistrates' Court. Mr Justice Birt rejected the submission that TfL had been unable to reach a view. TfL "did not have to reach a view on the point", and had expressed no conclusion on whether Uber knew the representations were false. There was still enough to plead an inference that the statements had been made deliberately and dishonestly.
The claims could have been advanced "in a reasonable period (e.g. 4-6 weeks) after publication" of the letter. Allegations about a kill-switch technology, referred to internally at Uber as Ripley, were reported in the press in January 2018, and those claims could have been included by February 2018. Black cab drivers "were well-informed, through a number of sources (including their trade associations)", and any black cab claimant exercising reasonable diligence would have discovered the necessary facts "at the latest by February 2018."
Neither Uber's evidence for the appeal nor the Chief Magistrate's judgment advanced the question of whether the misleading information had been intentional. The statement TfL filed for the appeal added depth, but it "did not contain material that could have tipped the balance" towards pleading fraud. The alleged fraud or deliberate concealment could, with reasonable diligence, have been discovered before 25 June 2018, more than six years before the first claim form. Actual knowledge was not determinative.
Who was heard
The preliminary issue was tried on 29 and 30 June and 6 July 2026. It concerned 20 sample black cab claimants and Justin Peters. Alain Choo Choy KC and Reanne MacKenzie, instructed by Mishcon de Reya LLP, appeared for the claimants. Sonia Tolaney KC and Michael Watkins, instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, appeared for the Uber companies.