Legal Research
Cases
Andrianakis v Uber Technologies Inc and Others (Settlement Approval)

Andrianakis v Uber Technologies Inc and Others (Settlement Approval)

Link copied

Case Copied 2 December 2024 84 min read

Contents

On this page

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION
GROUP PROCEEDINGS LIST

S ECI 2019 01926

BETWEEN:

NICOS ANDRIANAKIS	Plaintiff
- and -
UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC and others (according to the Schedule of Parties)	Defendants

S ECI 2020 01834

AND BETWEEN

JAMAL SALEM in her capacity as executor for the estate of ANWAR SALEM	Plaintiff
- and -
UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC and others (according to the Schedule of Parties)	Defendants

S ECI 2020 03593

AND BETWEEN

PETER STEWART	Plaintiff
- and -
UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC and others (according to the Schedule of Parties)	Defendants

S ECI 2020 04787

AND BETWEEN

H.D. ANDREE & M. ANDREE (a partnership)	Plaintiff
- and -
UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC and others (according to the Schedule of Parties)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Matthews J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	9 and 10 September 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	2 December 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Andrianakis v Uber Technologies Inc and Others (Settlement Approval)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 733

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for approval of settlement of group proceeding – Whether terms of settlement fair and reasonable – Whether settlement distribution scheme fair and reasonable – Whether claim for legal fees and disbursements fair and reasonable – Settlement approved – Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) Part 4A.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Applications by unregistered group members for leave to participate in the settlement – Rationale for soft class closure orders is consistent with requirement for unfair prejudice to be established as the basis for granting such leave – Adequacy of notification regime – Exercise of discretion partly by way of categories.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs in each proceeding	Ms M Szydzik SC, Mr T Farhall and Ms A Staker of counsel	Maurice Blackburn Pty Ltd
For the Defendants in each proceeding	Mr D Sulan SC and Ms M Ellicott of counsel	Herbert Smith Freehills
For the Harbour Fund III, L.P	Mr N De Young KC and Mr K Raghavan of counsel	Webb Henderson
As Contradictor	Ms K Burke SC and Mr T Rawlinson of counsel	None

Contents

A.. Introduction and overview

B... Summary of proposed settlement

C.. Materials before the Court

D.. Confidentiality

D.1         The plaintiffs’ application for confidentiality orders
D.2         Harbour’s application for confidentiality orders
D.3         Consideration regarding confidentiality orders

E... Legal principles

F... Unregistered group members

F.1          Maurice Blackburn’s review and categorisation of the UGM Applications
F.2          Further materials
F.3          Applicable legal principles
F.4          General application of these principles to this case
F.5          Adequacy of the distribution of the Opt Out and Closure Notice
F.6          UGM Applications which do not meet key criteria
F.6.1        Invalid applications – Category 1 of the UGM Categorisation Register
F.6.2        Applications not supported by evidence – Category 2 of the UGM Categorisation Register
F.6.3        Applications which do not identify the basis on which leave ought be granted
F.6.4        UGM Applications by Gordon Legal clients which were not supported by affidavits by the individual UGMs

F.7 Categorisation of the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Andrianakis v Uber Technologies Inc and Others (Settlement A... and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] VSC 733
Decision Date: 2 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Andrianakis, a representative plaintiff, seeking approval for a settlement agreement in a group proceeding against Uber Technologies Inc and other defendants. The dispute centred on the terms of the settlement, including the fairness and reasonableness of the distribution scheme and the claim for legal fees and disbursements. The application was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria, which had jurisdiction under the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) Part 4A to approve the settlement of group proceedings.

The legal issues before the court included whether the terms of the settlement were fair and reasonable, whether the distribution scheme was equitable, and whether the claim for legal fees and disbursements was justified. The court also had to consider applications by unregistered group members for leave to participate in the settlement, examining the rationale for the soft class closure orders and the adequacy of the notification regime.

In deciding the application, the court found that the terms of the settlement were fair and reasonable, and that the distribution scheme was equitable. The court also found that the claim for legal fees and disbursements was justified. In relation to the applications by unregistered group members for leave to participate in the settlement, the court found that the rationale for the soft class closure orders was consistent with the requirement for unfair prejudice to be established as the basis for granting such leave. The court also found that the notification regime was adequate and exercised its discretion partly by way of categories.

The court approved the settlement agreement and granted leave to the unregistered group members to participate in the settlement. The orders included the approval of the settlement agreement, the distribution scheme, and the claim for legal fees and disbursements. The court also made orders in relation to the applications by unregistered group members for leave to participate in the settlement, including orders that the soft class closure orders be varied and that the notification regime be deemed adequate.

Orders