Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Abdalla v Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCATCD 7 Hearing dates: 18 January 2024 Date of orders: 28 June 2024 Decision date: 28 June 2024 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: D Robertson, Senior Member Decision: (1) The Respondents Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd and Uber BV are to pay the Applicant, Salahadeen Suliman Hussaen Abdalla, damages for breach of contract in the sum of $1000, immediately.
(2) The application is otherwise dismissed.
Catchwords: CONSUMER LAW – Breach of contract – Deactivation of Uber driver’s access to the Uber App – Whether deactivation authorised by contract between Uber entities and driver
CONSUMER LAW – Unfair contract terms – Small business contract – Whether agreement between Uber entities and driver was a small business contract – Whether term permitting Uber entities to terminate the contract or deactivate access to the Uber App without notice or cause would be an unfair contract term – Whether term limiting the damages recoverable for breach of the contract by the Uber entities was an unfair contract term
Legislation Cited: Australian Consumer Law (NSW) ss 23, 24, 25
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Chrisco Hampers Australia Ltd (2015) 239 FCR 33; [2015] FCA 1204
Bell Solar Pty Limited T/as Sunboost v Anderson [2021] NSWCATAP 278
Cessnock City Council v 123 259 932 Pty Ltd [2024] HCA 17
Commercial Union Assurance Co of Australia Ltd v Ferrcom Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 389
Maygood Australia Pty Ltd v The Owners – Strata Plan No 85338 [2020] NSWCATAP 237
Najafi v Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCATCD 153
Rehman v Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCATCD 3
Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Exch 850; 154 ER 363
Texts Cited: Halsbury’s Laws of Australia [110 – 11365]
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Salahaldeen Suliman Hussaen Abdalla (Applicant)
Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd (First Respondent)
Uber BV (Second Respondent)Representation: Applicant in person
Solicitors:
C Murray-Baptista, solicitor (Respondent)
Dentons (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2023/00373109 (Previously GEN 23/44951) Publication restriction: Nil
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
-
The respondents in these proceedings are companies registered in Australia and the Netherlands respectively. The respondents are part of the group of companies which operates the Uber “ride sharing app” in Australia and elsewhere.
-
The applicant entered into an agreement (the Services Agreement) with the respondents on 3 March 2020. Pursuant to the Services Agreement the first respondent, referred to in the agreement as Rasier Pacific, agreed to:
“procure and facilitate the provision of lead generation services, being on-demand intermediary and related services rendered via a digital technology application that enable[s] transportation providers to seek, receive and fulfil on-demand requests for transportation services (“Uber services”) to [the applicant], an independent provider of peer-to-peer passenger transportation services”.
-
The second respondent, referred to in the Services Agreement as Uber, agreed to license to the applicant:
“the Uber…
Continue reading Abdalla v Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Abdalla v Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCATCD 7
- Case
- [2024] NSWCATCD 7
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that came before the court included whether the deactivation of the applicant's access to the Uber App was authorised by the contract between the Uber entities and the applicant, and whether certain terms in the contract were unfair under the Australian Consumer Law. The court had to determine whether the agreement between Uber entities and the applicant constituted a small business contract and, if so, whether the terms permitting unilateral termination or deactivation without cause or notice were unfair. Additionally, the court examined whether a term limiting the damages recoverable for breach of contract by the Uber entities was an unfair contract term.
The court found that the deactivation of the applicant's access to the Uber App was not authorised by the contract. It also determined that the agreement was not a small business contract, thereby exempting it from the unfair contract term provisions. However, the court ruled that the term permitting Uber entities to deactivate access to the Uber App without notice or cause was an unfair contract term. Despite this, the court did not find the limitation of damages term to be unfair. Consequently, the court ordered the respondents to compensate the applicant for the breach of contract, awarding him $1000 in damages, while dismissing the rest of the application.
The court's orders mandated that Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd and Uber BV pay the applicant $1000 for the breach of contract, with immediate effect. The application was dismissed in all other respects, leaving the unfair contract terms and their implications unaddressed beyond the determination of the breach and the associated damages.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The Respondents Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd and Uber BV are to pay the Applicant, Salahadeen Suliman Hussaen Abdalla, damages for breach of contract in the sum of $1000, immediately.
(2) The application is otherwise dismissed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.