header-logo header-logo

Minicabs soar past Uber’s roadblock

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

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

North west team expands with senior private client and property hires

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Firm boosts corporate team in Newcastle to support high-growth technology businesses

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll