Reading Borough Council v Ali [2019] EWHC 200 (Admin)

The questions of law on which our opinion is sought in the case stated are as follows:

(1) As a matter of law did the display of the respondent’s vehicle as the outline of a car on the smartphone Apps of potential passengers constitute an invitation to book the respondent’s vehicle?

(2) As a matter of law did the display of the respondent’s vehicle as the outline of a car on the smartphone Apps of potential passengers constitute an invitation to book an Uber vehicle in the vicinity, even if it were not the respondent’s?

(3) If the answer to questions (1) or (2) is yes:

(a) Did the Chief Magistrate err in law in holding it to be relevant to whether the respondent was plying for hire, that his vehicle had no distinctive markings, was not at a stand and was not available on the street to pick up passengers in the traditional way? and/or

(b) Did the Chief Magistrate err in law in holding it to be a relevant consideration that the whole of the transaction between the passenger and the driver, and the passenger and the licensed operator, was conducted via a smartphone App, where the booking process starts, is recorded and the fare estimated?

(4) On the facts agreed and found by her, did she err in law in finding that the prosecution had not proved that the respondent was plying for hire?

Held:

(1) No, because the identity of the vehicle could not be seen from the App and the specific vehicle could not be booked;

(2) No, because on the facts found the App merely informed Uber customers who wished to book a private hire vehicle that there were such vehicles in the vicinity;

(3) (a) and (b) No, in any event;

(4) No.