By Guy Davis, Managing Partner, Davis Woolfe

A recent High Court decision provides a stark reminder to claimants and their advisers of the dangers of limitation and, in particular, the potentially unforgiving approach the courts may take to arguments based on the late discovery of fraud or deliberate concealment.

In White & Ors/Peters v Uber London Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 2651 (Comm), the High Court dismissed claims brought by approximately 13,000 London black cab drivers and claims assigned by two former private hire businesses against Uber. The claims were valued collectively at approximately £340 million. The Court held that they had been brought outside the applicable limitation period.

The decision is an important reminder of a deceptively simple point: what matters for limitation purposes may not be when a claimant actually discovered the facts necessary to bring its claim, but when it could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered them.

The claims against Uber

The claimants alleged that companies within the Uber group had misled Transport for London (“TfL”) about aspects of Uber’s operating model, with the result that Uber had been able to compete with established taxi and private hire businesses. Uber denied the allegations. The recent judgment concerned limitation, rather than determining whether the underlying allegations were true.

The proceedings were not issued until May and June 2024. The critical question was therefore whether the claimants could rely on the provisions governing fraud or deliberate concealment to postpone the commencement of the limitation period.

The claimants contended that they could not responsibly have alleged fraud until evidence concerning Uber’s dealings with TfL emerged during a licensing appeal in June 2018.  

The Court disagreed.

What could reasonable diligence have uncovered?

The particularly significant aspect of the judgment is the Court’s treatment of what the claimants could have discovered had they exercised reasonable diligence.

Mr Justice Birt concluded that information already in the public domain, including TfL’s decision refusing to renew Uber’s licence and other publicly available material, provided sufficient grounds for the relevant allegations. The judge concluded that a black cab claimant exercising reasonable diligence could and would have discovered the facts necessary to plead the claims by February 2018 at the latest.

That distinction is crucial.

Limitation is not necessarily postponed until a claimant has assembled every piece of evidence, obtained definitive proof of wrongdoing or received legal advice confirming that its contemplated claim has good prospects of success. The recent decision reinforces that the relevant question can instead be whether sufficient information existed for the claimant, acting with reasonable diligence, to formulate and plead the claim.

This can be an uncomfortable distinction for claimants.

There is an understandable instinct, particularly where fraud or deliberate wrongdoing is suspected, to continue investigating until the evidential picture is as complete as possible. Serious allegations should not be advanced lightly. But where limitation is concerned, waiting for the complete picture can carry its own significant risk.

Public information can matter

The case also demonstrates the potential significance of information that is already publicly available.

The Court considered TfL’s publicly available decision letter alongside press reports and other material. It concluded that there was sufficient information from which the claimants could have drawn the necessary inferences and advanced their case.  

For litigants, that creates an important practical issue. A claimant cannot necessarily answer a limitation defence simply by saying: “We did not know.”

The Court may ask the more difficult question:

“With reasonable diligence, when ought you to have known enough?”

For businesses contemplating claims arising from suspected fraud, concealment or misconduct, identifying that date can be every bit as important as investigating the merits of the underlying claim.

A £340 million lesson in limitation

The consequences in White/Peters were particularly dramatic. Claims totalling approximately £340 million were dismissed on limitation grounds without the Court having to determine the truth of the substantive allegations against Uber.

There is also a striking feature in the chronology. A pre-action letter setting out the proposed claim was sent to Uber in July 2019, but proceedings were not ultimately commenced until 2024. The material referred to in the judgment records that the litigation funder’s involvement ended in November 2019 and that there was then no further contact with Uber concerning the proposed claim for four-and-a-half years.

That illustrates a broader litigation lesson. The merits of a claim and the availability of funding are separate from the question of limitation. Difficulties in securing funding, gathering further evidence or deciding whether litigation is commercially worthwhile do not necessarily prevent time from running.

Acting early

For prospective claimants and their advisers, the practical message is clear.

Limitation should be investigated at the outset of any potential dispute and kept under review as the factual picture develops. This is especially important where a claimant believes that material facts have been concealed or only became apparent significantly later.

That exercise should not start and end with asking when the claimant actually became aware of the potential claim. It should include careful consideration of what information was available earlier, what further enquiries could reasonably have been undertaken and when those enquiries might have provided sufficient material to plead the claim.

Where the position is uncertain, protective proceedings or an agreement concerning limitation may need to be considered rather than assuming further investigation will stop the clock.

The lesson from White/Peters is ultimately a simple but important one: do not confuse discovering the whole case with having enough information to bring it.

For a claimant, that distinction can determine whether the merits of a potentially substantial claim are ever considered by the Court at all.