[2025] EWHC 2972 (Comm)

A limitation issue has arisen because the case put forward by the claimants is that the unlawful period of operation of the business was between mid-2012 and 14 March 2018. In addition to a defence on the merits, the defendants have raised the issue of limitation, claiming that the claims were statute barred either:

The claimants’ response to that, set out in their reply, is that they are entitled to rely on section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 by reason of fraud and/or deliberate concealment on the part of the defendants, with the effect that the limitation period did not begin to run before a reasonable period after 25 or 26 June 2018 at the earliest, when they could reasonably have discovered the facts relevant to their claims.

The relevance of 25/26 June 2018 is that it was the date on which a hearing was heard by the Chief Magistrate. During the course of that hearing, the Chief Magistrate found that there had been irregularities concerning the operation of the licence by Uber but that, having regard to the changes made to operating conditions in March 2018, the appeal against the refusal to renew the licence would be allowed.

The preliminary issue that has been identified and agreed by the parties, subject to the approval of the court, is in the following terms:

“Did the claimants discover, or could the claimants with reasonable diligence have discovered, the alleged fraud and/or deliberate concealment only after 25 or 26 June 2018?”

The court is satisfied that it is a sensible way forward for this case, having regard to the relevant authorities, including the applicable principles set out in the case of Steele v Steele [2001] CP Rep 106 per Neuberger J as summarised by Hildyard J in Wentworth Sons v. Lomas [2018] 2 BCLC 696 at [32].

In this case, if the issue of limitation were to be resolved in favour of the defendants, then it would be dispositive, potentially, of the whole case. If it were to be resolved in favour of the claimants, then it would resolve an issue that in any event must be resolved.

In terms of the issue itself, it can be dealt with in a reasonably short hearing, currently estimated to be five days. Although there will be some factual evidence required, it will be a mixed question of fact and law and can be encompassed within a sensible timeframe, thereby not unduly taking up court time or disadvantaging other court users. The parties have helpfully agreed the basis on which the issue will be dealt with; the primary factual allegations of misrepresentation will be assumed to be true for the purpose solely of the preliminary issue, thereby excluding much of the factual investigation that the court might otherwise have to make.

The preparation, hearing and determination of the preliminary hearing will involve some time and expense but the scope of the issue will not unduly increase the costs or delay the trial.

For those reasons, the court agrees that this is a sensible preliminary issue for the court to order.

The general timetable has been agreed by the parties, which is very helpful, set out in a draft order put before the court. The only change to the draft order that is required is at paragraph 4, where it is proposed that the court should list the matter for five days, rather than four, to include both one day of pre-reading for the court and also one day’s gap between the hearing and closing submissions. That seems to me to be very sensible, and I will make the appropriate change.