The technological description of a taximeter is out of date and technically TFL cannot find fault with Uber regarding the letter of the law. They are deferring to the High Court to gain a binding ruling based on the spirit of the law.
The case hinges on whether the Uber app constitutes being a taximeter despite not being fixed to the vehicle.
We complain so much about all these laws that "didn't keep up with the times", but the instant it's in favor of the technologists we should just be like "that's cool"?
> "They are deferring to the High Court to gain a binding
> ruling based on the spirit of the law."
> "Maybe the rules should be updated, maybe not, but that's
> not for the High Court to do!"
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1907/55/pdfs/ukpga_19070...
(Also, the law says that the Secretary of State gets to define what constitutes a taximeter).
> They aren't entitled to "interpret" the law in ways that
> contravene the text
Of course the law is open to interpretation and Judges not only disagree with each other they also overrule each other depending on the court and case in question.