Introduction

The case of United Trade Action Group Ltd & Anor v. Transport for London & Anor, decided by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on July 30, 2021, centers on whether Transport for London (TfL) and the Mayor of London acted unlawfully in implementing the London Streetspace Plan and subsequent traffic management measures during the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic. The appellants, TfL and the Mayor, faced judicial review claims brought by United Trade Action Group Ltd. (UTAG) and Licensed Taxi Drivers Association Ltd. (LTDA), trade bodies representing licensed taxi drivers.

The core issues examined were TfL and the Mayor's compliance with the Equality Act 2010, the maintenance of legitimate expectations of taxi drivers, and the rationality of their decisions in restricting taxi access to bus lanes and specific roads in London during the pandemic.

Summary of the Judgment

Initially, Lang J. quashed the London Streetspace Plan, the interim guidance to boroughs, and the A10 Order, asserting that TfL and the Mayor failed to consider the interests of licensed taxi drivers, neglected public sector equality duties, breached legitimate expectations of taxi drivers, and acted irrationally. However, upon appeal, the Court of Appeal overturned Lang J.'s decision, finding that the original judge erred in her analysis, particularly regarding the irrationality of TfL's actions and the inadmissibility of certain evidence.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the Plan and the Guidance were not irrational and that TfL had adequately considered material factors, including those pertaining to taxi services and their passengers. Furthermore, the Court found no breach of the public sector equality duty or legitimate expectations. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the original judicial review claims were dismissed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key precedents that influenced the Court of Appeal's decision:

• Dupont de Nemours (EI) & Co. v S.T. Dupont [2003] EWCA Civ 1368; [2006] 1 WLR 2793
• Liverpool City Council, ex parte Baby Products Association [2000] LGR 171
• R. v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd. [1998] Env. L.R.
• R. (on the application of Dolan) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2020] EWCA Civ 1605
• R. (on the application of Letts) v Lord Chancellor [2015] EWHC 402 (Admin); [2015] 1 WLR 4497
• R. (on the application of Bayer plc) v NHS Darlington CCG [2020] EWCA Civ 449
• Eventech Ltd. v The Parking Adjudicator and others [2012] EWHC 1903 (Admin)

These cases collectively address the principles of judicial review, particularly concerning the admissibility of evidence, the standard of rationality in administrative decisions, and the obligations under the Equality Act 2010.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal meticulously dissected the original judge's reasoning, particularly disputing her application of an "anxious scrutiny" test for rationality when a straightforward rationality test should have sufficed. The appellate court emphasized the importance of context, notably the unprecedented nature of the Covid-19 pandemic, which necessitated swift and decisive action from public authorities.

Regarding the public sector equality duty under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, the Court of Appeal found that the Guidance provided sufficient high-level directives to borough councils. It recognized the fact-sensitive and judgment-dependent nature of equality duties, concluding that TfL and the Mayor had adequately referenced and incorporated these obligations within the constraints of an emergency response.

On the matter of legitimate expectations, the appellate court held that there was no clear, unambiguous promise that would bind TfL and the Mayor to maintain taxi access under all circumstances. The Bus Lane Policy allowed for exclusions based on safety and operational considerations, which were reasonable grounds for the temporary measures implemented during the pandemic.

Impact

This judgment underscores the judiciary's deference to administrative bodies, especially in emergency contexts where swift policy adaptations are imperative. It clarifies that temporary measures, even if impinge on established rights or expectations, can withstand judicial scrutiny if they are proportionate, evidence-based, and within the scope of public sector duties.

For future cases, this decision reinforces the principle that courts will assess the reasonableness of administrative actions within their specific contexts, particularly emergencies. It also delineates the boundaries of legitimate expectations and the extent to which public sector equality duties must be manifested in high-level policy documents versus detailed implementation guidelines.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Public Sector Equality Duty

Under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, public bodies like TfL and the Mayor of London must consider how their decisions affect people with protected characteristics, such as disability. This duty requires proactive efforts to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations between different groups.

Legitimate Expectation

Legitimate expectations arise when a public authority (1) has made a clear promise or has a consistent past practice, and (2) an individual or group relies on that expectation to their detriment. In this case, the taxi drivers alleged that they had a legitimate expectation to continue using bus lanes as they had historically.

Rationality Test

The rationality test assesses whether a decision made by a public authority is logical and reasonable. It examines if the decision is based on relevant considerations and free from irrationality, such as being based on conjecture without evidence.

Anxious Scrutiny

"Anxious scrutiny" refers to a heightened level of examination applied by a judge when assessing whether a decision is rational. The Court of Appeal found that the original judge improperly applied this rigorous standard instead of a standard rationality test.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in UTAG & Anor v. TfL & Anor serves as a pivotal reference for administrative law, particularly in contexts requiring rapid policy responses amid crises. By overturning the initial judicial review, the appellate court affirmed the validity of TfL and the Mayor's actions during the Covid-19 pandemic, provided they are grounded in reasonableness and comply with established legal duties.

Key takeaways from this judgment include the affirmation of the judiciary's respect for administrative discretion in emergency scenarios, the nuanced application of the public sector equality duty, and the clarification that legitimate expectations must be founded on clear, unambiguous promises. This case reinforces the necessity for public authorities to balance swift decision-making with adherence to legal principles, ensuring that measures are justifiable, proportionate, and inclusive.