Introduction

The case of United Trade Action Group Ltd & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v. Transport for London & Anor ([2021] EWCA Civ 1197) presents a pivotal moment in the intersection of public transport policy, equality obligations, and legitimate expectations within the context of emergency response during the COVID-19 pandemic. The appellants, Transport for London (TfL) and the Mayor of London, faced judicial review claims from the respondents, United Trade Action Group Ltd. (UTAG) and Licensed Taxi Drivers Association Ltd. (LTDA), representing licensed taxi drivers.

Summary of the Judgment

The central issue revolved around whether TfL and the Mayor acted unlawfully by failing to consider the interests of licensed taxi drivers in the preparation and publication of the London Streetspace Plan (“the Plan”) and associated guidance during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, the legality of the A10 GLA Roads Order, which imposed traffic restrictions affecting taxis, was scrutinized.

The initial ruling by Lang J. favored the respondents, quashing both the Plan and the A10 Order on grounds including failure to comply with the public sector equality duty, breach of legitimate expectations, and irrationality. However, upon appeal, the Court of Appeal overturned these findings, reinstating the validity of TfL’s and the Mayor’s actions.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key cases that have shaped the understanding of judicial review and public administration law:

• Dupont de Nemours (EI) & Co. v S.T. Dupont: Emphasizes the conventional approach to appellate jurisdiction in judicial reviews.
• R. (on the application of Dolan) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care: Deals with governmental responses to pandemics and the scope of judicial oversight.
• R. (on the application of Friends of the Earth Ltd.) v Heathrow Airport Ltd.: Highlights that press statements embody policy and are subject to judicial review.
• R. (on the application of Letts) v Lord Chancellor: Differentiates between guidance and settled policy.
• Hotak v London Borough of Southwark Council: Discusses the nuances of public sector equality duties.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal meticulously dissected the lower court’s findings, emphasizing the following points:

• Rationality Test: The appellants contended that the lower court misapplied the rationality standard by subjecting the decision-making process to "anxious scrutiny." The Court of Appeal upheld that the decisions were rational responses to unprecedented circumstances, considering the unpredictability of the pandemic's progression.
• Public Sector Equality Duty: Contrary to the lower court’s assertion, the Court of Appeal found that TfL and the Mayor had sufficiently addressed equality obligations through high-level guidance, which mandated boroughs to consider the impacts on protected groups during implementation.
• Legitimate Expectation: The appellants successfully argued that there was no clear, unambiguous promise ensuring perpetual access for taxis to bus lanes, especially under emergency measures necessitated by the pandemic.
• Admissibility of Evidence: The Court of Appeal found that the exclusion of certain evidence by the lower court was excessive and that the remaining admissible evidence was adequate to assess the lawfulness of the decisions.

Impact

This judgment has far-reaching implications for public transport policy and administrative law:

• Emergency Policy-Making: It reinforces the validity of swift, evidence-based decisions by public authorities during crises, provided they adhere to fundamental legal obligations.
• Equality Considerations: Public sector bodies are reminded of their obligations to integrate equality impacts into high-level policies, even when disseminated through guidance rather than detailed policy documents.
• Legitimate Expectations: The ruling clarifies that extraordinary circumstances can override previously established norms, negating claims based on legitimate expectations unless a clear and unambiguous promise is evident.
• Judicial Review Scope: It delineates the boundaries of what constitutes admissible evidence in judicial reviews, emphasizing that excluded evidence should not undermine the overall assessment of a decision’s lawfulness.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED)

The PSED, established under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, mandates public authorities to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations among diverse groups. In this case, TfL and the Mayor provided general guidance ensuring that local boroughs considered the impacts on protected groups when implementing the Streetspace Plan.

Legitimate Expectation

This legal principle protects individuals from arbitrary changes in administrative decisions. To claim a breach, one must demonstrate a clear and unambiguous promise by a public authority. The Court of Appeal determined that no such definitive promise existed regarding taxis' access to bus lanes under emergency conditions.

Rationality Test and Wednesbury Unreasonableness

The rationality test assesses whether a decision is logically coherent and based on evidence. Wednesbury unreasonableness refers to a decision so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would ever consider it. The Court of Appeal found that TfL's decisions met this standard of reasonableness given the pandemic's uncertainties.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in United Trade Action Group Ltd & Anor v. Transport for London & Anor serves as a critical affirmation of the discretion afforded to public authorities in times of crisis. By upholding TfL's and the Mayor's actions, the court recognized the necessity of flexible, responsive policy-making during unprecedented circumstances like a global pandemic. Furthermore, the judgment underscores the importance of proportionality, equality considerations, and the absence of clear, binding promises when evaluating claims based on legitimate expectations.

For stakeholders in public transport and administrative law, this case reinforces the balance between safeguarding individual rights and enabling authorities to implement effective measures in response to emergent challenges.