A. Can you please tell me who TFLs panel of external law firms are? B. FOI - 1079 - 1819 states: TfL’s external legal costs in the recent licensing appeal by London private hire vehicle operator Uber London Limited were £96,015.70. These are being covered in full by Uber London Limited following the legal action. It's reported in the media that TfL's legal fees (which were paid by Uber) to be in the region of £450,000. Can you explain the reason for the £353,985 discrepancy? C. Can you please provide a detailed list of fees from individual legal advisers working for TfL on this matter? https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-1079-1819

---

TfL Ref: FOI-2874-1819

Thank you for your email received by Transport for London (TfL) on 26 January 2019.

Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy.  I can confirm we hold some of the information you require. You asked:

A. Can you please tell me who TFLs panel of external law firms are?

As a large commercial organisation TfL inevitably requires a panel of external firms that work alongside our in-house team of lawyers.  The firms that are currently on the panel were appointed after a competitive process and comprise: Ashurst, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, Eversheds Sutherland, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Gowling WLG, Herbert Smith Freehills, K&L Gates, Lewis Silkin, Simmons & Simmons, Dentons and Trowers & Hamlins. 

We are currently conducting a competitive process to appoint a new panel of external firms to provide legal support.

B. FOI - 1079 - 1819 states: TfL’s external legal costs in the recent licensing appeal by London private hire vehicle operator Uber London Limited were £96,015.70. These are being covered in full by Uber London Limited following the legal action. It's reported in the media that TfL's legal fees (which were paid by Uber) to be in the region of £450,000. Can you explain the reason for the £353,985 discrepancy?

You referred to reports in the media that TfL’s legal fees were in the region of £450,000. Please note that the Court made an order that Uber pays our legal costs in the sum of £425,000, of which £328,984.30 was in-house legal costs and £96,015.70 was Counsel’s costs.

C. Can you please provide a detailed list of fees from individual legal advisers working for TfL on this matter?

Counsel’s costs consist of:

£53,181.68 paid to Martin Chamberlain QC of Brick Court Chambers

£34,765 paid to Tim Johnston of Brick Court Chambers

£1,845.00 paid to Charlotte Gilmartin of 1 Crown Office Row

If this is not the information you are looking for, or if you are unable to access it for some reason, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal as well as information on copyright and what to do if you would like to re-use any of the information we have disclosed.

Yours sincerely

Eva Hextall

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

  

A. Can you please tell me who TFLs panel of external law firms are?

B. FOI - 1079 - 1819 states: TfL’s external legal costs in the recent licensing appeal by London private hire vehicle operator Uber London Limited were £96,015.70. These are being covered in full by Uber London Limited following the legal action.

It's reported in the media that TfL's legal fees (which were paid by Uber) to be in the region of £450,000. Can you explain the reason for the £353,985 discrepancy?

C. Can you please provide a detailed list of fees from individual legal advisers working for TfL on this matter?

https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-1079-1819

Back to top

---