DELTA Merseyside Ltd v Uber Britannia Ltd [2025] UKSC 31 (29 July 2025)

Uber sought a declaration that the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 requires private hire vehicle operators to accept bookings only by entering into hire contracts as principal. The Supreme Court rejected this, holding that section 56(1) is a deeming provision allowing operators to use agency or intermediary models while still being liable for hire contracts.

Facts

Uber Britannia Ltd (UBL) operated private hire vehicles (PHVs) outside London under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. Following a 2021 Divisional Court decision concerning the Private Vehicles (London) Act 1998, the Uber group changed its business model in March 2022 to accept bookings only by entering as principal into contracts of hire with passengers. Other PHV operators, including D.E.L.T.A. Merseyside Ltd and Veezu Holdings Ltd, continued using agency or intermediary models where the operator either acted as agent for the driver or merely undertook to use best endeavours to find an available driver.

UBL brought proceedings seeking a declaration that the 1976 Act made it unlawful for operators to accept bookings otherwise than by using the hire contract model. Foster J granted the declaration, but the Court of Appeal reversed this decision.

Issues

The central issue was whether the 1976 Act makes it unlawful for a PHV operator to accept a booking otherwise than by entering as principal into an immediate contract of hire with the passenger to provide the journey.

Interpretation of Section 56(1)

The court had to determine the meaning and effect of section 56(1), which provides that every contract for the hire of a PHV shall be deemed to be made with the operator who accepted the booking, whether or not the operator provided the vehicle.

Judgment

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed UBL’s appeal. Lord Briggs delivered the judgment, holding that section 56(1) is a deeming provision that achieves the objective of fixing the operator with liability to fulfil the hire, triggered if and when a hire contract is actually made, regardless of how, when and between whom.

The court found that section 56(1) serves a useful purpose where operators use agency or intermediary models, ensuring they remain liable for the performance of hires resulting from accepted bookings. If UBL’s construction were correct, the provision would be rendered completely otiose, since an operator entering as principal into a hire contract would already be liable at common law.

Lord Briggs observed that the 1976 Act regulates by licensing rather than by imposing restraints on how contracts are made. There is nothing in the Act expressly imposing the prohibition UBL contended for, and nothing from which such a prohibition could be implied.

Implications

This decision confirms that PHV operators outside London may continue to use agency or intermediary models when accepting bookings, rather than being required to contract as principal with passengers. The statutory deeming provision in section 56(1) ensures operators remain liable for the fulfilment of hire contracts that result from their booking activities, regardless of the contractual model used.

The judgment is significant for the PHV industry as it preserves the flexibility of business models that have operated since before 1976. It also clarifies that the regulatory scheme under the 1976 Act operates primarily through licensing requirements rather than by mandating specific contractual arrangements between operators and passengers.

Verdict: Appeal dismissed. The 1976 Act does not make it unlawful for PHV operators to accept bookings otherwise than by entering as principal into immediate contracts of hire with passengers.

Source: DELTA Merseyside Ltd v Uber Britannia Ltd [2025] UKSC 31 (29 July 2025)