September 13, 2017

In Kaivanpor v. DPP [2015] EWHC 4127, the Divisional Court sought to resolve what was seen as a tension between the decision of the Court of Appeal in Re Muck It Ltd v. Merritt [2005] EWCA Civ 1124 and Canterbury City Council v. Ali [2013] EHWC 2360 (Admin) as to who bore the burden of proof in establishing whether an already licensed individual (in Kaivanpor a taxi driver) is a fit and proper person when considering an appeal against a revocation.

In a supreme irony, one of the reasons given by the Divisional Court for preferring the approach in Muck It over that in Ali was that Ali was “ a decision reached with only one party present and represented which was based on an absence of relevant Court of Appeal authority”. This was an irony because in Kaivanpor only one party (Mr Kaivanpor) appeared a...

June 18, 2016

Uber changed its UK customer terms and conditions on 16 June 2016.

At the time of writing, the amendments seem to have been made without announcement (in terms of email or pop-up message) to users of the Customer App. [Update: the change was mentioned en passant in an email concerning UberPOOL on 20 June 2016]

The changes appear to have been prompted by the introduction of UberEATS food delivery service in London - and it appears that Uber wishes to use the same small print for UberEATS as it does for “transportation services”.

The extent of the changes themselves is fairly minor (a tracked changes version is available here), but the document remains as before a fairly complex one which requires careful analysis. This is particularly because:

  • the customer is dealing with several entities (so, for...

Please reload

Charles Holland - 
Barrister

Licensing, chancery/commercial and property barrister.

Search By Tags
Please reload

© 2016-2019 Charles Holland

  • LinkedIn Social Icon
  • Twitter Black Round