A claim can involve serious allegations, thousands of potential claimants and substantial losses - and still fail before the court decides whether the alleged wrongdoing occurred.
Uber has secured dismissal of two linked English claims seeking approximately £340 million. The High Court’s October 19 decision turned on limitation, rather than the merits of the underlying allegations. Reuters: Uber defeats linked claims.
In White v Uber, [2026] EWHC 2651 (Comm), the claimants included nearly 13,300 London black-cab drivers and an assignee of claims belonging to former private-hire businesses. They alleged unlawful means conspiracy connected to Uber’s operation in London. High Court judgment: White v Uber, [2026] EWHC 2651 (Comm).
When limitation begins
The central question was whether the claims could benefit from postponement under section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980. The court concluded that reasonable diligence could have uncovered the alleged wrongdoing more than six years before proceedings began. Reuters: Uber defeats linked claims.
The practical tension is familiar: claimants want enough evidence to bring a credible case, while defendants may argue that sufficient information was available much earlier.
Waiting for a stronger case can therefore create a different weakness. The eventual evidentiary record may improve while the opportunity to sue disappears.
Build a chronology of knowledge
For litigation teams, the useful lesson is to investigate the chronology of knowledge alongside the chronology of alleged misconduct. Those are separate exercises.
A merits chronology asks what the defendant allegedly did. A limitation chronology asks what the claimant knew, what could reasonably have been discovered and when further investigation became possible.
That second chronology should capture public reporting, regulatory proceedings, advice, correspondence and investigative steps. Counsel should also record why particular information was insufficient at the time, rather than reconstructing that explanation years later.
A comparative lesson, not Canadian law
For Canadian practitioners, the judgment offers a comparative illustration rather than a Canadian limitation rule. The applicable statutory wording and domestic authorities must drive the analysis.
The decision also requires careful reporting. Uber’s success on limitation does not establish that every contested representation was accurate. Equally, the existence of serious allegations does not preserve a claim filed outside the applicable period.
The strongest evidence in the world cannot necessarily rescue a claim brought too late.
Related coverage: Air Canada Pricing Appeal Puts Consumer Remedies Before Supreme Court.
Sources: High Court judgment: White v Uber, [2026] EWHC 2651 (Comm) · Reuters: Uber defeats linked claims .