High Court Grants Permission in Landmark Challenge to TfL’s Private Hire Licensing System

When TfL failed to determine renewal applications before existing licences expired, thousands of drivers found themselves unable to work through no fault of their own, with some exhausting savings, falling into debt and struggling to meet essential financial commitments.

Against that backdrop, the High Court has granted permission for judicial review to proceed in Mugabo v Transport for London, a landmark challenge concerning TfL's duty when determining private hire drivers’ renewal applications. In a judgment handed down on 25 June 2026, Mr Justice Sweeting granted permission on two grounds, recognising that the claim raises "an issue of general importance" concerning the nature and scope of TfL's duties under the statutory licensing scheme.

This is believed to be the first time these issues have been litigated since the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 came into force. The outcome therefore has the potential to establish important principles concerning the operation of London's private hire licensing regime and the obligations owed by TfL to renewal applicants.

Mr Julius Mugabo, a licensed private hire driver whose livelihood depended on his licence, brought a judicial review against TfL after his licence expired before a decision had been made on his renewal application, despite him applying in advance. The failure to determine his renewal application before his existing licence expired left Mr Mugabo unable to lawfully work for approximately five months. Although TfL ultimately granted his renewed licence in August 2025 after proceedings were issued, together with an urgent application for interim relief, Mr Mugabo continued pursuing the claim to challenge the wider systemic issues highlighted by his case.

At its core, the case asks a straightforward but important question: does TfL have a duty to operate its licensing system in a way that prevents drivers who have complied with the renewal process from losing their entitlement to work while awaiting a decision?

The Court found it arguable that Parliament intended TfL to operate a system capable of determining renewal applications in sufficient time to avoid interruptions to a person's ability to work where they have applied in advance of their previous licence expiring. In granting permission, Mr Justice Sweeting noted the unusual features of the statutory framework, including the absence of any mechanism allowing a licence to continue automatically pending determination of a renewal application. He concluded that it is arguable that Parliament intended the licensing authority to operate a system capable of determining renewal applications "timeously" so as to avoid arbitrary interruption to lawful work.

Permission was also granted on a second ground concerning legitimate expectation. The Court held it arguable that TfL's published policies and guidance may give rise to an expectation that renewal applications submitted with sufficient time and supporting information will be determined before licence expiry. Whether TfL's policies create such an expectation and whether any departure from it was lawful will be determined at the substantive hearing.

The importance of the case extends far beyond Mr Mugabo's individual circumstances. The claim raises concerns about the practical operation of TfL's renewal system and the consequences for drivers whose licences are essential to supporting themselves and their families. Evidence from the Independent Workers' Union of Great Britain (IWGB), which represents private hire drivers across London, suggests that Mr Mugabo's experience is far from unique. IWGB has been approached by hundreds of drivers reporting similar problems, including licences expiring before renewal applications were determined, repeated requests for documents already provided, lost applications, prolonged medical reviews and extended periods during which drivers were unable to work.

At least 17,000 drivers were left unable to work after their licences expired while renewal applications remained outstanding. The loss of income had immediate and serious consequences. Drivers exhausted savings, fell into debt, struggled to meet mortgage and rent payments and, in some cases, faced the repossession of vehicles essential to their livelihoods. For many, the financial effects persisted long after their licences were renewed, as they worked extended hours to recover lost earnings.

In bringing this claim, Mr Mugabo has sought not only to challenge the impact of these issues on his own livelihood, but also to obtain clarity on TfL's obligations to the wider private hire driver community. In practical terms, the case could require TfL to adopt a new process for licence renewals. This would help ensure that drivers who submit complete applications in good time are not left without a licence while awaiting a decision. Such a change would provide an important safeguard for private hire drivers whose livelihoods depend upon maintaining a valid licence.

The claim will now proceed to a substantive hearing before the High Court.

Mr Mugabo is represented by DPG Partner Ahmed Aydeed, Solicitors Ralitsa Peykova and Natalie Hawes, and Trainee Solicitor Megan Hovvells. Counsel is Oliver Jackson of 11KBW. DPG is grateful to Jason Coppel KC, who was originally instructed in the matter before his subsequent appointment to the judiciary. DPG also extends its thanks to IWGB for its support of Mr Mugabo throughout the litigation and for the valuable evidence and insight it provided regarding the wider impact of TfL's licensing system on private hire drivers.