Andrianakis v Uber Technologies Inc and Others (Settlement Approval)
[2024] VSC 733
•2 December 2024
| 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 UGM Applications after implementation of these key criteria
F.8 Re-review by Maurice Blackburn – Combinations of Categories 4, 6 and 9
F.8.1 How the MB Re-Review came about
F.8.2 Description of how the MB Re-Review was conducted
F.8.3 Consideration of UGM Applications falling solely within combinations of Categories 4, 6 and 9
F.9 The Court’s review of the remaining UGM Applications
F.9.1 Category 3 – Applications which state the reason for missing the class closure deadline
F.9.2 Category 4 – No knowledge of proceeding
F.9.3 Category 5 – No knowledge of Class Closure Deadline
F.9.4 Category 6 – Statement of group membership
F.9.5 Category 7 – Medical reasons
F.9.6 Category 8 – Language or special vulnerabilities
F.9.7 Category 9 – Financial hardship
F.9.8 Category 10 – Travel
F.9.9 Categories 11 to 14 – Mistaken belief of registration
F.9.10 Category 15 – Other
F.10 Conclusions regarding UGM Applications
G.. Objections to the proposed settlement
H.. Fairness and reasonableness of the proposed settlement
H.1 Quantum of the proposed settlement and the risks associated with continuing the litigation
H.1.1 Plaintiffs’ submissions
H.1.2 Contradictor’s submissions
H.1.3 Objections
H.1.4 Consideration
H.2 Whether it is in the interests of group members for the litigation to continue
H.3 Reaction of group members, in particular complaints regarding consultation or transparency
H.3.1 Content of some of the objections
H.3.2 Plaintiffs’ submissions
H.3.3 Contradictor’s submissions
H.3.4 Consideration
H.4 Proposed SDS
H.4.1 Overview of the SDS
H.4.2 Plaintiffs’ submissions
H.4.3 Contradictor’s submissions
H.4.4 Objections
H.4.5 Consideration
H.5 Legal costs and uplift to Maurice Blackburn
H.5.1 Overview of what the plaintiffs seek
H.5.2 Principles
H.5.3 Costs Referee’s Report
H.5.4 Plaintiffs’ submissions
H.5.5 Contradictor’s submissions
H.5.6 Harbour’s submissions
H.5.7 Objections
H.5.8 Plaintiffs’ reply submissions
H.5.9 Consideration
H.6 Funding commission
H.7 Payments to the plaintiffs and sample group members
I.... Appointment of settlement administrator
J.... The Stewart and Andree proceedings
K.. Conclusion and disposition
ANNEXURE A
ANNEXURE B
ANNEXURE C
ANNEXURE D
ANNEXURE E
ANNEXURE F
ANNEXURE G
ANNEXURE H
ANNEXURE I
HER HONOUR:
A Introduction and overview
The entry of Uber ride-sharing services into the Australian point to point passenger transport market caused significant disruption to the taxi and hire car industries. It precipitated major changes to those industries, including to the regulatory framework. Thousands of drivers, operators, licence holders and network service providers lost significant income and/or capital value, and many experienced substantial declines in their livelihoods, which they attribute to the entry of Uber ride-sharing services into the market.
In 2019, the law firm Maurice Blackburn commenced a group proceeding, commonly referred to as a class action, against seven companies in the Uber group of companies (Uber Entities, or Uber). The group members were participants in the taxi and hire car industries in Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia. Three other proceedings were subsequently commenced in relation to these issues.[1] On the eve of the trial, the parties entered into a proposed settlement. Without admission of liability, Uber agreed to pay $271.8 million to settle the proceedings, inclusive of all legal and funding costs, and interest. A proposed settlement of a class action can only go ahead if Court approval of it is obtained.
[1]See paragraph 5 and the footnotes thereto.
Accordingly, this judgment concerns an application under s 33V and/or s 33ZF of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) (the Act) for approval of the proposed settlement of four group proceedings brought against seven Uber Entities alleged to be responsible for introducing a ride-sharing service known as UberX to Australia and operating the service between 2014 and 2017. Specifically, the plaintiffs in each proceeding seek the approval of the settlement of their respective proceedings, on the terms set out in the deed of settlement entered into by the parties and dated 12 April 2024 (Deed) and the proposed Settlement Distribution Scheme (SDS), and related orders.[2]
[2]The plaintiffs’ proposed orders include proposed confidentiality orders over certain materials.
For the reasons set out in this judgment, the proposed settlement should be approved and administered according to the proposed SDS.
The four proceedings subject to this settlement approval application are:
(a)proceeding S ECI 2019 01926, commenced by Mr Nicos Andrianakis (the Andrianakis proceeding);[3]
(b)proceeding S ECI 2020 01834, commenced by Ms Jamal Salem in her capacity as executor for the estate of Mr Anwar Salem (the Salem proceeding);[4]
(c)proceeding S ECI 2020 03593, commenced by Mr Peter Stewart (the Stewart proceeding);[5]
(d)proceeding S ECI 2020 04787, commenced by H. D. Andree & M Andree (a partnership) (the Andree proceeding).[6]
[3]The Andrianakis Proceeding was commenced on 3 May 2019 by a licence-holder, taxi-cab operator and driver. He brought the proceeding on his own behalf and on behalf of all providers of point-to-point transport services (being taxi licence holders, operators, drivers and network service providers, and hire car licence holders, operators and drivers) in Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia.
[4]The Salem Proceeding was commenced on 20 April 2020. Mr Salem was a taxi licence holder in Victoria who passed away in 2018. Ms Salem brings the Salem Proceeding on her own behalf, and on behalf of persons who had derivative claims of the kind alleged in the Andrianakis Proceeding.
[5]The plaintiffs say that the Stewart Proceeding is a ‘protective’ proceeding commenced in NSW, because of limitations arguments foreshadowed by the defendants and then alleged in their defence, and subsequently transferred to this Court.
[6]The plaintiffs say that the Andree proceeding is a ‘protective’ proceeding commenced in Queensland, also in connection with limitations arguments raised by the defendants, and subsequently transferred to this Court.
A fifth ‘protective’ proceeding was issued in Western Australia (the Rosengrave proceeding).[7]
[7]The Rosengrave proceeding was commenced in Western Australia for the same or similar reasons as the two other protective proceedings. The Rosengrave proceeding was not transferred to this Court and does not form part of the application for approval before this Court. The Court is informed that, if the Court approves the settlement of the Proceedings, the plaintiff in the Rosengrave proceeding will apply to the WA Supreme Court to dismiss the claims in that proceeding and approve the settlement of the representative aspect of the Rosengrave proceeding.
In brief, the plaintiffs in the proceedings sought relief in the form of damages for alleged loss of income and a reduction in the value of taxi and hire car licences that they claim was caused to taxi and hire car drivers, licence owners, operators and network service providers by the unlawful introduction and operation of UberX services by the Uber entities in Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia. The Uber entities are each part of a corporate group headed by the first defendant, Uber Technologies Incorporated.
The relevant cause of action in the proceedings is conspiracy by unlawful means. To establish that tort, the plaintiffs had to show that the defendants (or two or more of them) agreed or combined to commit an unlawful act, with an intention to injure the plaintiffs and group members, that the agreement or combination was carried into effect, and that the plaintiffs and group members consequently suffered pecuniary loss.[8]
[8]See, for example, Uber Australia Pty Ltd v Andrianakis (2020) 61 VR 580, 593 [31].
The plaintiffs in each proceeding are represented by Maurice Blackburn and litigation funding in respect of all five proceedings was provided by Harbour Fund III, L.P. Aspects of the settlement requiring approval include amounts proposed to be paid to Maurice Blackburn in connection with legal costs and to Harbour in respect of a funding commission.
Since 2019, the proceedings have been hotly contested with a number of interlocutory disputes, including pleading disputes and strike out applications, discovery and privilege disputes, contested service on overseas defendants, and disputes over sample group members. Some of these interlocutory decisions were also the subject of appeals.
On 21 July 2023, Nichols J made orders in the Andrianakis and Salem proceedings,[9] providing for a registration process to occur and for what is known as ‘soft class closure’ (Class Closure Orders).[10] The Class Closure Orders relevantly included the following:
(a)the time and date by which group members could opt out of the proceedings was fixed as 4:00pm on 2 October 2023 (Class Closure Deadline);
(b)by the Class Closure Deadline, a group member could register their claim with Maurice Blackburn (the means by which group members were to register their claim and what information they had to provide were set out in the orders);
(c)subject to further order, only group members who had registered by the Class Closure Deadline (registered group members, or RGMs) were entitled to any relief or payment arising from an agreement to settle the proceedings where that agreement was reached any time between 21 July 2023 and 3 March 2024 (the date was later extended by Court order to 17 March 2024) and the agreement was subsequently approved by the Court;
(d)any group member who did not opt out or register by the Class Closure Deadline would remain a group member for all purposes of the proceedings but would not, without leave of the Court, be permitted to seek any benefit pursuant to any such Court-approved settlement of the proceedings; and
(e)the content of notices (Opt Out and Closure Notice) and advertisements and the manner in which Maurice Blackburn was to advertise and give notice were prescribed in the Class Closure Orders.[11]
[9]The three other protective proceedings had been temporarily stayed.
[10]See paragraph 7 of the order of Nichols J in Andrianakis v Uber Technologies Inc and Ors (Supreme Court of Victoria, S ECI 2019 01926, 21 July 2023) and paragraph 7 of the order of Nichols J in Jamal Salem in her capacity as executor for the estate of Anwar Salem v Uber Technologies Inc and Ors (Supreme Court of Victoria, S ECI 2020 01834, 21 July 2023). Those orders were amended by paragraph 12 of the Order of Nichols J made in each proceeding on 13 February 2024, to extend the date until which the class was closed from 3 March 2024 to 17 March 2024). See also Andrianakis v Uber Technologies Inc [2023] VSC 415 (Nichols J) (Class Closure Reasons).
[11]The notice regime will be discussed later in these reasons.
While this will be discussed in greater detail later in these reasons, the rationale for the Class Closure Orders in this case was that it was not possible for the parties to engage in meaningful settlement discussions or to get their arms around the potential quantum of the group’s claims without some knowledge of the size of the group.[12]
[12]Class Closure Reasons [2023] VSC 415.
On 17 March 2024, the night before the trial in the Andrianakis and Salem proceedings, the parties reached an in-principle settlement in respect of all five proceedings. On 12 April 2024, the parties executed the Deed.
As at that time, there were 8,701 registered group members, around 98% of whom have signed a funding agreement with Harbour.
On 19 April 2024, I made orders (19 April Orders) for the conduct of the approval application, including:
(a)orders for a notice of the proposed settlement to be given to group members (whether registered or not) (Settlement Notice);[13]
[13]The content of the Settlement Notice and the manner in which it was to be given to group members was prescribed in the 19 April Orders.
(b)a regime by which group members could object to the proposed settlement by submitting a completed notice of objection (the form of which was included in the Settlement Notice) and evidence (by way of affidavit), together with any written submissions (of no more than two pages) to Maurice Blackburn and to the Court by 4:00pm on 2 July 2024. The email addresses to which the objections were to be sent were set out in the orders;
(c)a regime in respect of group members who had not registered with Maurice Blackburn by the Class Closure Deadline as set out in the Class Closure Orders (unregistered group members, or UGMs), which included steps as follows:
(A)by 4:00pm on 7 May 2024, Maurice Blackburn was to make available on its website an online portal for the purpose of collecting the contact details of any person who is a UGM who wished to participate in the proposed settlement (Online Portal);[14]
[14]The form and content of the text to be displayed on the Online Portal was prescribed in the 19 April Orders.
(B)once a UGM entered their contact details on the Online Portal, Maurice Blackburn was to send them an additional notice (Communication)[15] and the Settlement Notice;
[15]The content of the Communication was prescribed in the 19 April Orders.
(C)by 4:00pm on 2 July 2024, UGMs who wished to seek leave from the Court to participate in the proposed settlement were required to identify the basis on which the Court should grant permission to do so and provide evidence by way of affidavit in support, and any written submissions of no more than two pages (UGM Application) by email to Maurice Blackburn (the relevant email address being specified in the orders);[16] and
[16]The Notice and the Communication included instructions to the effect of sub-paragraph (C), being how to make a UGM Application
(D)Maurice Blackburn was to provide the Court with a copy of UGM Applications received pursuant to sub-paragraph (C) above.
(d)orders for the appointment of Ms Catherine Dealehr, an independent costs solicitor, as a special referee for the purpose of conducting an inquiry and making a written report to the Court stating, with reasons, the referee’s opinion as to the reasonableness of the plaintiffs’ legal costs and disbursements incurred in relation to the proceedings and as to the reasonableness of the sum proposed for settlement administration costs (Costs Referee’s Report). The Costs Referee’s Report was to be provided to the Court and to the plaintiffs, on a confidential basis, by 4:00pm on 2 July 2024; and
(e)timetabling orders for the conduct of the settlement approval application, including:
(A)setting the deadline of 4:00pm on 2 July 2024 (2 July Deadline) for submitting an Objection or a UGM Application;
(B)listing the proceedings for further directions on 25 July 2024 (subsequently changed to 24 July 2024 by orders made on 11 July 2024, which change of date was required to be advertised on the Court’s website page for the Uber Group Proceedings and Maurice Blackburn’s website for the Uber Group Proceedings);
(C)specifying a date and time of 4:00pm on 9 August 2024 by which the plaintiffs and Harbour[17] were to file and serve any affidavits or written submissions on which they seek to rely in relation to the approval application. Any affidavits or written submissions over which they wished to claim confidentiality were to be sent to my Chambers by email, rather than filed and served, by that same deadline; and
(D)listing the approval application for hearing at 10:00am on 9 and 10 September 2024.
[17]Harbour was granted leave to appear and make submissions in respect of the approval application.
Michael Donelly of Maurice Blackburn has given evidence as to the plaintiffs’ compliance with these orders, including as to the Settlement Notice and its publication and distribution. I am satisfied that the plaintiffs have complied with the 19 April Orders.
On 11 and 24 July 2024, the Court held directions hearings for the proceedings so as to receive updates regarding the processing of objections and UGM Applications, and to confirm timetabling matters. I made orders on 24 July 2024 which included, amongst other things:
(a)orders appointing independent counsel, Ms Kate Burke SC and Mr Tom Rawlinson, as contradictor (the Contradictor) to review and make submissions about the objections and the UGM Applications at the hearing of the approval application; and
(b)orders that unless the Court had separately granted an extension of time to submit a UGM Application or an objection following an application made to the Court for such an extension, UGM Applications and objections submitted after the 2 July Deadline would not be considered by the Court. On 29 July 2024, I published reasons for making these orders.[18]
[18]Andrianakis v Uber Technologies Inc; Salem v Uber Technologies Inc (No 2) [2024] VSC 436 (UGM Application Extension Reasons).
A total of 634 objections were received by the Court-ordered deadline.[19] Of those objections, Maurice Blackburn identified that 549 were in fact purported UGM Applications (that is, objections that were or contained requests by unregistered group members to participate in the proposed settlement). Consideration of the objections which were in truth UGM Applications is found in section F.
[19]Including the extension granted to Mr Greg Webb of Taxicab Investments Pty Ltd to lodge an objection.
A total of 6,476 UGM Applications were received by the Court-ordered deadline (or where extensions of time were granted).[20] The UGM Applications are considered in section E of these reasons.
[20]This figure includes the 549 objections identified as purported UGM applications. An extension of time to lodge an application to apply for leave to participate was granted in respect of certain UGMs who had applied for an extension: see my orders dated 24 July 2024 made in all four proceedings and my orders dated 7 August 2024 and 19 August 2024 in the Andrianakis proceeding.
B Summary of proposed settlement
It is proposed that Uber pay the proposed settlement amount of $271.8 million, inclusive of all legal and funding costs, and interest. The settlement amount is to be distributed according to the SDS, subject to the following proposed deductions:
(a)Legal costs, in the amount of approximately $38.9 million, or around 14.2% of the settlement sum. This includes a 25% uplift on the conditional component of Maurice Blackburn’s legal fees.[21]
(b)Litigation funding charges to be paid to Harbour in the amount of $81.54 million, representing approximately 30% of the settlement sum.
(c)Reimbursement payments for the plaintiffs and sample group members in the amount of $220,000.
(d)Costs of administering the SDS. It is proposed that Maurice Blackburn be appointed as administrator of the SDS. The costs which will be incurred as a result of this work are not known, however, Maurice Blackburn proposes that a costs assessor provide four reports over the course of the administration in respect of those costs.
[21]As at the date of the settlement approval application being made and heard, the exact amount of legal fees was not known because Maurice Blackburn had not finalised their legal costs and disbursements for the period from 1 May 2024 up to the date of the settlement approval hearing, including costs relating to the Contradictor’s expenses.
The SDS provides for distributions to be made to participating group members based on five types of claims: capital loss claims, lease income loss claims, operator claims, driver claims, and network service provider (NSP) claims. Each type of claim (other than an NSP claim) is assessed by identifying a starting loss value, and then applying a series of discounts. NSP claims are to be individually assessed by a consulting accountant, and then a discount is applied. There are allowances made for partial ownership interests or industry participation over only part of the claim period. A group member may have multiple claims (ie, an individual who owned a taxi licence, operated the taxi vehicle and drove the taxi during the relevant period would have three claims: a capital loss claim, an operator claim and a driver claim).
Because of the way claims are proposed to be assessed, distributions will not reflect the actual loss suffered by an individual group member, but identically situated group members will receive identical payments. The assessment will not involve investigation of circumstances or losses of any individual group member, or require the production of financial records or other direct evidence of loss. The SDS provides for a right of review from decisions made as to the group member’s claim data, eligibility, and ultimate assessment.
C Materials before the Court
In respect of the application for settlement approval, the plaintiffs rely on the following materials:[22]
(a)the affidavit of Mr Michael Harold Donelly of Maurice Blackburn, solicitors for the plaintiffs, affirmed 15 April 2024;
(b)the first confidential affidavit of Mr Donelly affirmed 9 August 2024 (the First Confidential Affidavit), and the confidential opinion of counsel which is exhibited to that affidavit (Counsel Opinion);
(c)an open affidavit of Mr Donelly affirmed 9 August 2024 (the Open Affidavit);
(d)an affidavit of Mr Donelly affirmed 9 August 2024 concerning objections made to the proposed settlement;[23]
(e)an affidavit of Mr Donelly affirmed 9 August 2024 addressing the position of unregistered group members (First UGM Affidavit);[24]
(f)a further affidavit of Mr Donelly affirmed 29 August 2024 concerning unregistered group members;[25]
(g)a third affidavit of Mr Donelly affirmed 29 August 2024 concerning unregistered group members (Third UGM Affidavit);[26] and
(h)a second confidential affidavit of Mr Donelly affirmed 29 August 2024 (Second Confidential Affidavit).
[22]This paragraph describes the material relied upon by the plaintiffs up to and including the settlement approval hearing. There were two further affidavits prepared after the hearing, in circumstances which I describe later, upon which the plaintiffs also rely.
[23]The plaintiffs sought confidentiality orders over part of this affidavit.
[24]The plaintiffs sought confidentiality orders over part of the First UGM Affidavit.
[25]The plaintiffs sought confidentiality orders over part of this affidavit.
[26]The plaintiffs sought confidentiality orders over part of the Third UGM Affidavit.
The plaintiffs also filed a written outline of submissions in support of the application, dated 9 August 2024, and a reply dated 5 September 2024 to the submissions of the Contradictor.
Harbour relies on an open affidavit of Mr Mark King, head of case management at Harbour, and a confidential affidavit of Mr King with exhibits, both dated 8 August 2024, in addition to a written outline of submissions dated 9 August 2024.
The Contradictor filed a written outline of submissions dated 2 September 2024, and short supplementary submissions dated 11 September 2024.
The Court also had before it the Costs Referee’s Report filed on 28 June 2024 which addresses the reasonableness of the legal costs and disbursements incurred in the proceedings.
In addition, the Court was provided with a copy of all written objections and all UGM Applications. Several objectors appeared at the settlement approval hearing, either in person or via audio-visual link, to make submissions about their objections to the proposed settlement.
D Confidentiality
Orders to protect confidentiality in respect of certain matters or documents were sought by the plaintiffs and also by Harbour. For the purposes of conducting the hearing, the Court proceeded on the basis that the materials and information were to be treated as confidential. Nonetheless, I still need to determine whether it is appropriate to make the confidentiality orders sought.
D.1 The plaintiffs’ application for confidentiality orders
The plaintiffs seek confidentiality orders in respect of certain materials before the Court, being:
(a)the First Confidential Affidavit and exhibits (those being the Counsel Opinion and Annexures A to E of the SDS);
(b)the Costs Referee’s Report;
(c)the Second Confidential Affidavit;
(d)the Third Confidential Affidavit (described below);
(e)redacted portions of the Contradictor’s submissions; and
(f)parts of the other affidavit evidence disclosing personal or sensitive information about group members.
Under the orders proposed by the plaintiffs, the materials in (a) to (e) of the preceding paragraph would be able to be disclosed to the plaintiffs and their legal advisors, Harbour and its legal advisors, the Contradictor, and the Court. In addition to those persons, the materials in (f) of the preceding paragraph would be able to be disclosed to the Uber Entities and their legal advisors.
The plaintiffs submit that the confidentiality orders sought are appropriately confined and necessary to prevent a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice that cannot be prevented by other reasonably available means. The plaintiffs also submit that the confidential information has been disclosed to the Court for the sole purpose of enabling me to perform my role of determining the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed settlement.
The plaintiffs rely on three principal reasons in respect of the confidentiality orders sought.
First, the plaintiffs submit that disclosure of the information over which the confidentiality orders are sought would be prejudicial to the claims of the plaintiffs and group members and conversely advantageous to the defendants if available to the defendants in the event that the proposed settlement was not approved. By way of example:
(a)The Counsel Opinion contains counsel’s analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the plaintiffs’ case and on the prospects of success at trial.
(b)Annexures A to E of the SDS disclose valuations contained in expert evidence which has not been read in open court, and assessments of risk by Maurice Blackburn and counsel.
(c)The First Confidential Affidavit discloses the principles underpinning the SDS, which in turn disclose Maurice Blackburn’s and counsel’s assessment of the prospects of aspects of the case.
Second, many of the matters over which confidentiality orders are sought are based on materials protected by legal professional privilege. As well as the Confidential Affidavits, the Counsel Opinion, and aspects of annexures A to E of the SDS, the Costs Referee’s Report falls into this category.
Third, the plaintiffs submit that personal or sensitive information about individual group members should be kept confidential.
In making these submissions, the plaintiffs note the following:
(a)aspects of the Counsel Opinion, taken alone, are not confidential, such as the principles applicable in settlement approval applications. So that as much of the material as possible that is relied on by the plaintiffs is open, the plaintiffs’ written submissions in support of the approval application set out such aspects of the Counsel Opinion;
(b)the confidential annexures A to E of the SDS were made available to group members on request from Maurice Blackburn and upon group members executing a confidentiality undertaking.
D.2 Harbour’s application for confidentiality orders
Harbour also seeks confidentiality orders over certain documents, being:
(a)the material shaded grey in the Confidential King Affidavit;
(b)Exhibit MAK-3 to the Confidential King Affidavit;
(c)the material shaded dark grey in the sixth and seventh lines of paragraph 15 and in the last sentence of paragraph 29 of Harbour’s written submissions;
(d)the Confidential King Affidavit other than that material described in sub‑paragraph(a);
(e)Exhibit MAK-2 to the Confidential King Affidavit; and
(f)the material shaded light grey in paragraphs 15 and 16, footnote 35, paragraph 26 and footnote 57 of Harbour’s written submissions.
Under the proposed orders, the information contained in (a) to (c) of the preceding paragraph would be able to be disclosed only to Harbour and its legal advisors, the Contradictor and the Court. The information contained in (d) to (f) of the preceding paragraph would be able to be disclosed to those persons and to the plaintiffs and their legal advisors.
Harbour submits that these materials should be protected by confidentiality orders as they disclose commercially sensitive matters and/or assessments of the prospects of the claims. In particular, Mr King deposes that the material is:
(a)information confidential to Harbour, such as information on how it assesses and monitors investment opportunities and its internal deliberations regarding the claims that are the subject of these proceedings. Mr King says that disclosure of this information, including to the plaintiffs and their legal advisors, may prejudice Harbour’s negotiating position in relation to other existing or future investments;
(b)information confidential to the plaintiffs, including documents and communications protected by legal professional privilege; and
(c)information confidential to the plaintiffs and Harbour, disclosure of which would be prejudicial to the claims of the plaintiffs and group members if the settlement is not approved. This includes confidential assessments of the merits and weaknesses of the claims and of Harbour’s funding conditions.
Mr King deposes that Harbour has disclosed these matters to the Court for the sole purpose of enabling it to determine the fairness and reasonableness of the funding commission.
D.3 Consideration regarding confidentiality orders
Confidentiality orders are not granted as of right. They will not be made automatically or by default. Open justice is an important principle and it is to be given effect to, unless it is necessary for the administration of justice for certain restrictions to be imposed.
In instances such as this, where the Court’s approval is being sought and where the Court relies on the frank and comprehensive disclosure of all relevant information, including material which is confidential and/or protected by legal professional privilege, the interests of justice are served by the Court making confidentiality orders. Enabling the Court to fulfil its task is the only purpose for which the information is being provided to the Court. If the risk of disclosure of such information served to discourage the information being provided to the Court, then that is clearly contrary to the administration of justice. This is an important context for the consideration of confidentiality orders.
The confidentiality orders sought by the plaintiffs are partly justified on the basis of legal professional privilege which requires protection after settlement approval, and partly on the basis that not to make the orders would disclose analysis that might provide the defendants with an unfair advantage if settlement is not approved (ie, justifications that fall away on approval of settlement, or on the expiry of any appeal period). The latter justification may be a basis for limiting the operation of the confidentiality orders in respect of some of the information until further order of the Court, or until after the expiry of all periods in which an appeal may be brought in relation to any orders of this Court in these proceedings. However, I do not consider this to be an appropriate course in the present circumstances, as here, there is substantial overlap; the information is also protected by legal professional privilege and therefore requires protection irrespective of whether the settlement is approved or not.
Insofar as Harbour’s application regarding confidentiality is concerned, the information described in sub-paragraph 40(b) and (c) should be protected by confidentiality orders for the same reasons as expressed above, and also because of the commercial sensitivity of much of that information for Harbour. The justification for those orders is otherwise the same as it is for the plaintiffs’ confidentiality orders. I accept that the information described in sub-paragraph 40(a) above is confidential to Harbour and that confidentiality orders are required in order to protect that information, on the basis that disclosure of it would bring commercially sensitive information into the public domain. Such information has been recognised as confidential in other cases and protected by confidentiality orders.[27]
[27]See, for example, Iddles v Fonterra Aust Pty Ltd [2023] VSC 566, [65] (Delany J) (Iddles).
Where necessary and appropriate, the plaintiffs and Harbour have allowed for access to the confidential information by each other and the Contradictor and, in some instances, the Uber Entities. In my view, this is a sensible course and the Court was assisted by the submissions each was able to make with the benefit of them having access to that material. Further, the restriction of access to Annexures A to E of the SDS to group members who executed confidentiality undertakings was reasonable.
Accordingly, I will make the confidentiality orders sought by the plaintiffs and Harbour.
E Legal principles
The legal principles which apply to the approval of settlements of Part 4A group proceedings are well-established and do not need to be repeated at length here.[28] The Court must consider whether the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable and in the interests of group members who are to be bound by the settlement.[29] This involves consideration of two questions:
(a)whether the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable as between the parties, having regard to the claims of group members; and
(b)whether the proposed settlement is in the interests of group members as a whole (ie, fairness between group members and not just the parties).[30]
[28]The same considerations apply as for the settlement of a class action under Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), and the statements of legal principles in Federal Court decisions are generally apposite.
[29]See Botsman v Bolitho (No 1) (2018) 57 VR 68, 111-2 [200]-[209] (Tate, Whelan and Niall JJA) (Botsman) and the authorities cited therein.
[30]Downie v Spiral Foods Pty Ltd [2015] VSC 190, [45] (J Forrest J) (Downie).
As has been stated in numerous judgments, it is not the role of this Court to second guess or go behind the tactical or other decision-making of the plaintiffs’ legal representatives.[31] Rather, the Court must be satisfied that the decision to enter into the settlement is within the range of reasonable decisions, given the known circumstances and the reasonably perceived risks of the litigation, without any hindsight bias.[32] The reasonableness of a settlement must necessarily involve consideration of the approval of any funding commission and legal costs, as this will affect what money group members obtain from the pool in the event that I approve the settlement.[33]
[31]Kelly v Willmott Forests Ltd (in liquidation) (No 4) (2016) 335 ALR 439, 456 [74] (Murphy J).
[32]Murillo v SKM Services Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 663, [32] (J Dixon J); Darwalla Milling Co Pty Ltd v F Hoffman-La Roche Ltd (No 2), (2007) 236 ALR 322, 339 [50] (Jessup J) (Darwalla Mining Co).
[33]Iddles, [25], citing Quirk v Suncorp Portfolio Services Ltd (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 1457, [17]-[18] (Stevenson J).
The courts have similarly expounded in detail the various factors which may be taken into account in determining whether the settlement is fair and reasonable.[34] There is no enumerated, exhaustive list of factors which will be relevant to the Court’s determination in any particular case; this will depend on the circumstances which are before the Court, and every case must be dealt with on its own merits.[35] In this case, all of the factors which are set out in paragraph 16.6 of the Practice Note SC GEN 10 Conduct of Group Proceedings (Class Actions) (second revision) appear to be relevant, being:
[34]See, for example, Iddles [2023] VSC 566, [25]-[27]; Williams v FAI Home Security Pty Ltd (No 4) (2000) 180 ALR 459, 465-6 [19] (Goldberg J).
[35]Wheelahan v City of Casey and Ors [2011] VSC 215, [62] (Wheelahan); Matthews v AusNet Electricity Services Pty Ltd [2014] VSC 663, [42].
(a)the complexity and likely duration of the litigation;
(b)the reaction of the group to the settlement;
(c)the stage of the proceeding;
(d)the likelihood of establishing liability;
(e)the likelihood of establishing loss or damage;
(f)the risks of maintaining a group proceeding;
(g)the ability of the defendant(s) to withstand a greater judgment;
(h)the range of reasonableness of the settlement in light of the best recovery;
(i)the range of reasonableness of the settlement in light of all the attendant risks of litigation; and
(j)the terms of any advice received from counsel and/or from any independent expert in relation to the issues which arise in the proceeding.
Before I proceed to consider those matters, however, I need to deal with the issue of unregistered group members. It is plain that the outcome of the 6,476 applications by UGMs to participate in the proposed settlement has the potential to impact significantly on what this settlement looks like for group members. This potential impact means that it is necessary for me to determine the number of UGMs whose applications to participate in the settlement should be granted, before I turn my mind to whether the proposed settlement as a whole should be approved.
F Unregistered group members
Here, I describe briefly how UGM Applications were dealt with, before developing each aspect of this in more detail.
The Court has confronted practical difficulties with processing and considering the large volume of UGM Applications in a timely way while ensuring that the needs of access to justice are met.
The measures adopted to deal with the large volume of UGM Applications can be briefly described as follows:
(a)Each of the 6,476 UGM applications lodged by the Court deadline (or which were the subject of an extension of time to be lodged, granted by the Court) have been reviewed and categorised by Maurice Blackburn.
(b)The results of Maurice Blackburn’s review and categorisation are contained in a spreadsheet (UGM Categorisation Register). That register, along with copies of all UGM Applications, have been provided to the Court and to the Contradictor.
(c)Mr Donelly has given detailed evidence as to the Maurice Blackburn categorisation process and outcome.
(d)The Contradictor made submissions about the Maurice Blackburn review and about the Court’s processes for reviewing the UGM Applications.
(e)The Plaintiffs also made submissions about those matters.
(f)As a result of discussion at the settlement approval hearing, the Contradictor re-reviewed applications in certain categories and made further submissions.
(g)Also as a result of those discussions, Maurice Blackburn conducted a re-review of certain other categories, and provided further evidence (MB Re-Review). 2,595 UGM Applications were the subject of the MB Re-Review.
(h)I considered the available options and determined the best approach for the Court to adopt. As will be explained later, this was that some categories would be determined without individual review of applications by me, whereas others would be individually reviewed by me.
(i)On that basis, I reviewed 726 UGM Applications individually. How these were selected for individual review is explained later.
(j)In addition, I reviewed 677 of the UGM Applications that were in the MB Re‑Review. These were randomly chosen. Of the 677 such applications, I considered that seven should be approved.
In all, I individually reviewed 1,403 UGM Applications and have decided to grant leave to participate in the proposed settlement to 140 unregistered group members.[36]
[36]The 140 UGMs to whom I have granted leave to participate are identified in Annexure A.
F.1 Maurice Blackburn’s review and categorisation of the UGM Applications
I note at the outset that the work undertaken by Maurice Blackburn was essential in triaging the applications in a manner that could be considered by the Court with efficiency. This was of great assistance to the Court.
Mr Donelly describes the process for this task adopted by Maurice Blackburn in the Third UGM Affidavit.[37] In summary:
(a)Maurice Blackburn undertook an initial review of some UGM Applications and consulted with the plaintiffs’ counsel to develop a set of principles by which it would then review and categorise the UGM Applications (Categorisation Principles);[38]
(b)each UGM Application was loaded onto a discovery platform and reviewed by solicitors and paralegals in accordance with the Categorisation Principles;
(c)Maurice Blackburn reviewed and categorised the UGM Applications, having regard to those issues and themes which were raised expressly in the applications. Maurice Blackburn did not seek to infer issues and themes which were not expressly raised in the UGM Applications. For example, in order for an application to be categorised as ‘states reason for missing class closure deadline’ it had to make reference to the Class Closure Deadline and provide a reason why the deadline was not met;
(d)in identifying the common themes and therefore the categories, Maurice Blackburn sought to identify all categories of reasons included by group members which potentially provided a basis on which the applications may be assessed by the Court. For example, if an application was assessed as being in Category 4 and an explanation of any substance was provided beyond the mere statement of ‘no knowledge’, that application was also placed in another category. Where reasons were provided that were bespoke and did not fall within a common theme, that application was included in the ‘other’ category; and
(e)many applications raised multiple categories, each of which are recorded in the UGM Categorisation Register.
[37]I note that this was prior to the MB Re-Review.
[38]The Categorisation Principles were in evidence.
While the various categories will be discussed in more detail below, the categories and the number of UGM Applications falling within them, according to Mr Donelly’s evidence (prior to the MB Re-Review), are summarised in the below table:[39]
[39]A small number of applications were identified as falling within different categories in the course of the Contradictor’s review and my review, and there were also some duplicative applications identified and six further applications which were omitted from this table. This is detailed further below.
Category Number Category Description Number of UGM Applications 1 UGM Application is invalid 109 2 UGM application is not supported by evidence 619 UGM Application is supported by an affidavit 5,303 UGM Application is supported by a statutory declaration 439 3 States reason for missing Class Closure Deadline 544 4 No knowledge of proceeding – the UGM Application states that the UGM was unaware of the proceedings generally 3,393 5 No knowledge of Class Closure Deadline – the UGM Application states specifically that the UGM was unaware of the Class Closure Deadline 11 6 Statement of group membership – the UGM Application contains a form of statement, evidence or assertion that the UGM was a group member 6,113 7 Medical reasons – the UGM Application refers to medical or health issues 119 8 Language or special vulnerabilities – the UGM Application refers to English or language difficulties, or otherwise raises a special vulnerability such as age, legal guardianship or living in remote areas 277 9 Financial hardship – the UGM Application refers to the UGM as having suffered or currently suffering financial hardship 741 10 Travel – the UGM Application refers to the UGM either travelling or being overseas during parts of the proceeding 46 11-14 Mistaken belief of previous registration in proceedings – the UGM Application refers to the UGM having a mistaken belief that they had previously registered to participate in the proceedings 43 15 Other – the UGM Application raises other themes that are not addressed by the above categories 19
F.2 Further materials
With respect to the question of whether the Court ought grant leave to unregistered group members seeking to participate in the proposed settlement, the plaintiffs rely on certain materials annexed or exhibited to materials identified in section B. The further materials were filed in support of the Class Closure Orders made in the Andrianakis and Salem proceedings, as follows:
(a)the affidavit of Mr Donelly affirmed 15 June 2023 (Opt Out and Registration Affidavit);
(b)the affidavit of Mr Cameron David Hanson, solicitor for the defendants, affirmed 15 June 2023; and
(c)the affidavit of Mr Donelly affirmed 11 July 2023 (Further Opt Out and Registration Affidavit).
The Court also has the benefit of detailed and well-considered submissions in the approval application from the Contradictor on the UGM applications.
F.3 Applicable legal principles
The Class Closure Orders have effect unless the Court otherwise orders. I must determine whether I ought to permit a UGM to participate in the settlement pursuant to my discretion under s 33ZF of the Act. In exercising that power, I have a protective role in respect of group members as a whole, and primary consideration must be given to group members.[40] Section 33ZF empowers the Court to make any order the Court thinks appropriate or necessary to ensure that justice is done in the proceeding. Accordingly, in making my decision, I must be satisfied that it is appropriate or necessary to ensure that justice is done in the proceeding to permit the UGM to participate, or I will decline to order their participation. In doing so, I must be astute to protect the best interests of all group members.
[40]Stallard v Treasury Wine Estates Ltd [2020] VSC 679, [20] (Nichols J), citing: Wigmans v AMP Ltd (2019) 373 ALR 323, 345 [103]–[104] (Meagher and Payne JJ); Wileypark Pty Ltd v AMP Ltd (2018) 265 FCR 1, 7‑8 [14]–[15] (Allsop CJ).
It is self-evident that a group member will suffer prejudice if they are to be bound by the settlement but not able to partake because of the operation of the Class Closure Orders. However, mere prejudice is not enough. The potential for this prejudice was already considered by the Court in the making of the Class Closure Orders and balanced against the ‘desirable ends of settlement’ to be facilitated by the greater certainty about the size of the class and quantum obtained as a result of those orders.[41]
[41]Class Closure Reasons [2023] VSC 415, [27] (Nichols J).
In order to be permitted to participate in the proposed settlement, the UGM must sufficiently demonstrate unfair prejudice to them in the operation of the Class Closure Orders, so that I am satisfied that it would be unjust to exclude the UGM from participating in the settlement.[42] This is a high threshold for the UGM to reach.
[42]Money Max Int Pty Ltd (Trustee) v QBE Insurance Group Ltd (2018) 358 ALR 382, 392 [44]; Class Closure Reasons [2023] VSC 415, [30].
The Contradictor submits that the justification for the Class Closure Orders in the instant case is relevant to my consideration. I agree with this submission, although I would put it more strongly. In the context of these proceedings and when making the Class Closure Orders, Nichols J observed that there was significant uncertainty about the size of the class and the quantum of the losses of group members, and accepted the plaintiffs’ evidence that, if the proceeding settled without the class having been closed, there was a significant risk that UGM claims would have the effect of diluting recoveries by RGMs and altering the basis on which the settlement had been reached.[43] In making the Class Closure Orders, Nichols J was also satisfied the notice regime put in place by the Court would provide group members with appropriate and sufficient notice of the requirement to register.[44] The justification for the Class Closure Orders is not just relevant to my consideration regarding the UGM Applications, but is an important consideration as to how they should be determined. In my view, the UGM Applications must be assessed in a manner which is consistent with the rationale for requiring group members to opt out or register by a certain date, as to do otherwise serves to undermine those orders. Further, I note that the evidence bears out this justification for the Class Closure Orders. In the First Confidential Affidavit, Mr Donelly gives evidence of the work undertaken by the plaintiffs and their solicitors to estimate the likely quantum of the claims made in the proceedings. I am unable to go into the detail of this given the confidential and privileged nature of the information, but it is clear that the work undertaken was extensive and relied heavily on calculations and careful analysis done in turn by experts such as economists and statisticians. Having a known class, and class size, by that time was essential for this work. This work was all undertaken prior to the parties attending mediation ordered by the Court, and it is clear that sensible settlement discussions could only occur once the parties had a reasonable basis for estimating the quantum of the claims, so that Uber would be informed in making any settlement offers and the plaintiffs could assess the adequacy of any settlement proposals. The plaintiffs’ assessment was heavily reliant on the modelling work that had been undertaken by them and experts they engaged. Thus the rationale for the Class Closure Orders is consistent with the requirement that in order to be granted leave to participate in the proposed settlement, UGMs must establish unfair prejudice.
[43]Class Closure Reasons [2023] VSC 415, [17], [26].
[44]Ibid [27]-[28].
It may be unjust to exclude a UGM from participating in the settlement in circumstances where they have provided persuasive evidence that they did not receive notice of the class closure, or where there is persuasive evidence that the notice regime was defective, as occurred in Wetdal Pty Ltd v Estia Health Limited.[45]
[45][2021] FCA 475 (Beach J).
While the Class Closure Orders provided for the possibility that leave may later be granted to unregistered group members, such applications for leave still need to satisfy the relevant legal principles and evidence requirements.
The Contradictor also submits that it is likely that the grant of leave to UGMs will dilute funds available to satisfy claims of RGMs. UGMs who have made applications in this case have done so on the assumption that they are entitled to some amount from the settlement proceeds. The Contradictor says that the plaintiffs’ confidential modelling, as described in the confidential section of the Third UGM Affidavit, supports the contention that the pool available for RGMs will be diluted.
I accept this submission, having reviewed the evidence of that confidential modelling. Obviously, the extent of the dilution depends on the number of UGM Applications which are accepted. In turn, that may impact upon whether the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable. Given the large number of UGMs, the potential for this to affect the Court’s assessment of whether to approve the proposed settlement is real. Accordingly, I consider it necessary to first deal with the UGM Applications before dealing with other aspects of the approval application.
Consistent with the Court’s obligation under s 33V to consider the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed settlement as between group members, it should critically assess the reasons and evidence provided by a UGM for failing to register by the Class Closure Deadline. In this regard, the Contradictor refers to the observations of J Forrest J in Downie,[46] who was satisfied in respect of the scheme for late registrants forming part of the settlement arrangements in that group proceeding that:
[It] appropriately balances the potential desirability of permitting group members who failed to register by the deadline to participate in the settlement on one hand, as against the interest of group members who registered in a timely fashion in not having the amount available to them reduced without proper reason.
[46][2015] VSC 190, [166].
In that case, a scheme for late registrants was included as part of the settlement[47] and the Court held that it was appropriate to approve the settlement. Here, there is no scheme for late registrants and there are many more UGMs seeking to participate. This context must be borne in mind.
[47]There were 82 late registrants who sought to participate in that case, and under the settlement arrangements the Court was asked to approve, Maurice Blackburn had the power to decide whether the late registrants could participate, having regard to factors including the length and reasons for delay, any likely prejudice to other group members, and the extent to which the late registrant acted promptly upon coming to know of his or her possible entitlement under the settlement. Maurice Blackburn were required under the scheme to give reasons for a refusal and there was an opportunity for a late registrant to have a refusal decision reviewed by the Court on payment of a bond within 14 days: Downie [2015] VSC 190, [87]-[91].
The Contradictor submits, and I agree, that the critical assessment of the reasons and evidence provided by UGMs in support of their applications should, however, be undertaken having regard to the characteristics of the class and the Court’s protective jurisdiction.[48] Many UGMs have limited proficiency in the English language and may not have much knowledge of the Australian legal system. As Merkel J observed in the context of a class action brought by persons refused refugee status and seeking judicial review:[49]
[T]he present matter involves a class action by a group of persons having little command of the English language and, I assume, even less knowledge and understanding of the Australian legal system. In these circumstances no assumption can be made that a failure to raise an issue is based on instructions. That fact, together with the additional fact that the action is a class action under Part IVA, can give rise to a greater responsibility on the part of the Court in relation to the conduct of the hearing.
[48]Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Richards [2013] FCAFC 89, [8] (Jacobson, Middleton and Gordon JJ).
[49]Nguyen v the Minister for Immigration Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 66 FCR 239, 244-45.
The Contradictor has not been able to identify any authority which expressly addresses the question of how, where a proceeding has settled while class closure orders are in force, the Court must approach the determination of UGM Applications. In particular, must the Court consider each separate application, or can it assess like applications as a cohort? According to the Contradictor, the answer to this question involves balancing several competing considerations: the Court’s obligations under the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) (the CPA) to facilitate the just, efficient, timely and cost-effective resolution of the real issues in dispute (ss 7, 8(1)(a)), 9); the interests of RGMs in having the settlement approved and the settlement funds distributed as cheaply and quickly as possible; and the process set out in the Settlement Notice for making a UGM Application. In respect of the latter, the Contradictor submits that the Settlement Notice provides group members with a legitimate expectation that their application will be considered by the Court. The Contradictor’s submissions proceeded on the basis that the Court can determine certain cohorts of like UGM Applications on a collective basis, but that based on their review of the UGM Applications exhibited as examples to the Third UGM Affidavit, it may not be possible to determine a large percentage of the UGM Applications without reviewing each application. The Contradictor submits that the categorisation of the UGM Applications by Maurice Blackburn helpfully identified common themes, but that process was not designed or intended to assess the merits of the applications and cannot stand as a substitute for that process. That is not to say that significant guidance in that task cannot be derived from the principles described above.
I address specific aspects of this submission below, however, it suffices at this point for me to indicate that I consider that in the exercise of my discretion, some of the UGM Applications can be determined by category, whereas others need to be reviewed individually.
F.4 General application of these principles to this case
The plaintiffs take no position on the question of whether the UGMs, either individually or generally, ought be permitted to participate in the proposed settlement. That said, the plaintiffs acknowledge that this issue may impact upon the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed settlement, if the proportion of UGM Applications which are granted significantly affects the position of RGMs, as will be discussed later.
The Contradictor’s submissions included a statement of general principles which they submit can guide my assessment of the merits of the UGM Applications. I approve of and adopt those principles, which are:
(a)All UGM Applicants will suffer prejudice if they are excluded from participation in the proposed settlement. However, prejudice alone is insufficient to warrant inclusion. UGMs must demonstrate that they will suffer unfair prejudice if they are excluded from participation in the settlement.
(b)Where a UGM was aware of the Class Closure Deadline at the time, but did not take any steps to register, and does not have a persuasive and credible reason for not doing so, they will not have established unfair prejudice.
(c)Even if there is no deficiency in the distribution of the notice that would warrant a partial reopening of the class, that does not foreclose that a group member may have a credible explanation for not receiving the notice.
(d)Where a UGM claims they were not aware of the Class Closure Deadline, but does not offer any explanation for their non-awareness (for example: they are not a member of an industry association charged with distributing the notice; they do not read the newspaper; they rarely or never see or speak to other taxi or hire car drivers, license holders, and operators; they were interstate, overseas, unwell or experiencing other difficulties at the relevant time),[50] then having regard to the principles set out at section F.3 above, and taking into account the purpose of the Class Closure Orders, the absence of any deficiency in the distribution of the notice, and the fact that many thousands of group members did register prior to 2 October 2023, it is open to the Court to decline their application.
(e)Similarly, where a UGM claims they were not aware of the proceeding until the proposed settlement was announced, but does not offer any explanation for their lack of awareness (for example: they were not in any of the participating states in early to mid-2019; they do not read the newspaper; they rarely or never see or speak to other taxi or hire car drivers, license holders, and operators),[51] it is open to the Court to decline their application.
(f)Where the UGM claims they were unaware of the proceeding and/or the Class Closure Deadline, and provides an explanation for their lack of awareness, or provides any other reason in support of their application, the reason should be assessed on its merits, having regard to the matters set out in section F.3 above. Without intending to be exhaustive, reasons which specifically identify and address, for example, the time and place of relevant events, and the particular circumstances of the deponent, will be more persuasive than reasons which are vague and general in nature.
(g)In other cases, courts have refused to accept applications by unregistered group members where the evidence of the failure to register consists of an unsupported assertion (for example, where the deponent asserts that they were overseas, but without exhibiting an airline ticket or passport record). However, in this case, UGMs were not advised in the 19 April Orders, the Settlement Notice or the other communications to UGMs approved in those orders that they should provide any evidence other than an affidavit. That is, they were not expressly directed to substantiate the evidence in their affidavit with records. Given it appears a large proportion of UGMs (if not group members) speak English as a second language, are unlikely to be familiar with the legal system, and in most cases are not represented or assisted by lawyers, if the evidence would be accepted as a good reason for non-registration, if substantiated, it is open to the Court to accept the reason as stated. The Contradictor also submitted that as an alternative, it would be open to the Court to give those group members an opportunity to substantiate their evidence (but not to provide any additional reasons) before their application is determined. I have adopted the former approach, for the reasons submitted by the Contradictor. It is simply unwieldy and inefficient for the latter approach to be adopted; it would involve another round of evidence from UGMs and result in further delay in the determination of the settlement approval application. The approach I have adopted strikes a suitable balance between requiring evidence (even if not supported by contemporaneous records) and efficiency.
[50]I note here that being able to point to one of these explanations was not of itself sufficient. Each such UGM needed to explain, with sufficient particularity, why that meant they did not register in time. This is discussed in more detail below.
[51]Again, for the UGM to point to one of these explanations was not of itself sufficient. The UGM needed to explain, with sufficient particularity, why that meant they did not register in time.
F.5 Adequacy of the distribution of the Opt Out and Closure Notice
While the adequacy of the distribution of the Opt Out and Closure Notice was one of the themes identified from the objections, it is also relevant to the Court’s consideration of the UGM Applications. So much is apparent from the general principles referred to above, particularly in sub-paragraphs 75(c) and (d). It is therefore convenient to address this issue here.
In determining whether to make the Class Closure Orders, Nichols J considered the proposed notification regime and informed the parties that she was not satisfied on the evidence that the regime was adequate. Her Honour required the plaintiffs to submit evidence about the proposed arrangements with industry organisations and to provide a proposed schedule of newspaper advertisements for each relevant state.[52] That evidence was filed.[53] Having reviewed that evidence, her Honour was satisfied that the revised notification regime would provide group members with appropriate and sufficient notice of the requirement to register an interest in the proceedings in order to participate in any settlement reached before trial.[54]
[52]Class Closure Reasons [2023] VSC 415 [23].
[53]See Ibid, [24]-[25], for a summary of the evidence.
[54]Ibid, [28].
The Class Closure Orders set out the notification regime required for the Opt Out and Closure Notice to be given to group members. This regime included the following:
(a)making the Opt Out and Closure Notice available in downloadable form on the Court’s websites for the Andrianakis proceeding and the Salem proceeding;
(b)Maurice Blackburn making the Opt Out and Closure Notice available on its website for these proceedings;
(c)Maurice Blackburn causing the Opt Out and Closure Notice to be sent to each person who had already registered with Maurice Blackburn in respect of the proceedings, via email where an email address was available and otherwise by post;
(d)Maurice Blackburn sending a copy of the Opt Out and Closure Notice to each of the following industry associations, bodies or individuals, with a request that they distribute the notice to their members or networks and inform them of the proceedings and the Class Deadline:
(i)Victorian Taxi Association;
(ii)Transport Matters Party;
(iii)New South Wales Taxi Council;
(iv)New South Wales Hire Car Association;
(v)Taxi Council Queensland;
(vi)Queensland Taxi Licence Owners Association;
(vii)Limo Action Group Queensland;
(viii)Mr Athan Tsirigotis;
(ix)Ms Julie Murray;
(x)Australian Taxi Industry Association; and
(xi)Black & White Cabs;
(e)Maurice Blackburn causing an advertisement regarding the requirement to opt out or register by 2 October 2023 to be published once in one weekday edition of each of the Herald Sun, Daily Telegraph, Courier Main and the West Australian newspapers. The form of the advertisement was prescribed in the orders and included all pertinent information, including that a consequence of not registering in time would be that the group member would be precluded from participating in any settlement reached before trial and from bringing an individual claim against the Uber Entities.
In addition, the Class Closure Orders required the Opt Out and Closure Notice to be translated into six other languages.
Mr Donelly deposes as to the steps taken in respect of this notification regime. I am satisfied that the plaintiffs complied with the orders made in respect of publication and distribution of the Opt Out and Closure Notice.
Ignoring duplicate registrations, between 21 July 2023 and 4 October 2023, Maurice Blackburn processed approximately 726 new group member registrations.
As I observed in my UGM Application Extension Reasons:
[G]roup members were given extensive notice of the requirement to register prior to the Class Deadline and had over two months to do so. The advertisement and notice provisions contained in the [Class Closure Orders] were extensive and comprised many different methods … It is apparent that this resulted in several hundred group members who had not already registered doing so by the Class Deadline.[55]
[55][2024] VSC 436, [42].
Some objectors criticised the notification regime on the basis that they were not members of the relevant associations and that there were other methods which could have been employed to distribute or publicise the Opt Out and Closure Notice. These other methods included showing the notice on the electronic screens used by network operators to communicate with drivers, being posted on noticeboards at taxi bases and airport taxi ranks, and holding town hall meetings at taxi bases.[56]
[56]See, for example, the application identified as UBCA.001.002.0221.
The Contradictor submits that this type of evidence is not sufficient to show that the notification regime was deficient or otherwise unfair to group members as a whole, for the following reasons:
(a)the raw numbers of RGMs and UGM Applications do not support any firm conclusions regarding the effectiveness of the notification regime. There may be any number of reasons why a group member did not register following the Class Closure Orders, which could include not receiving the Opt Out and Closure Notice, deciding not to act on the notice, being unable to act on the notice, or adopting a ‘wait and see’ approach;
(b)the fact that an individual group member has a good explanation as to how they did not receive the notice does not mean that the notification regime was deficient; and
(c)unfairness or prejudice to an individual group member arising from a lack of notice, if substantiated by appropriate evidence, may justify them being granted leave to participate in the proposed settlement.
I accept this submission. Further, I do not consider the fact that a large volume of late attempts to register, via making a UGM Application, is indicative of the notification regime being inadequate. In many ways, the fact that a large number of group members responded to the significant publicity and media attention when the proposed settlement was announced and when it was clear that there was a large amount of money to be distributed is not particularly surprising. It does not mean that the notice of the requirement to register was inadequate.
In short, the notification regime in the Class Closure Orders was adequate and there was compliance with those orders.
F.6 UGM Applications which do not meet key criteria
As observed above, I have reviewed certain UGM Applications by way of categories. Specifically, I have first considered categories of UGM Applications based on whether they meet certain criteria which I consider to be so fundamental to the requirements for a grant of leave that an application which fails to comply with that criteria will be dismissed. It is necessary to do so in order to dispose of the proceeding in a manner which is efficient and just, having regard to the requirements of fairness and principles outlined in sections F.3 and F.4 above. In triaging these applications, the Court has been assisted by the efforts of Maurice Blackburn, the submissions of the plaintiffs’ Counsel, and the analysis of the Contradictor.
The Court has made its decision with respect to applications that do not meet key criteria based on the evidence and submissions. It is a matter for the Court how it approaches applications for leave to participate in the settlement by UGMs, in the same way as it is for the Court to determine applications for leave more generally. It is a matter of the Court’s discretion and, in the circumstances of this case, I consider that it is appropriate for certain applications to be determined by way of category. These include those applications that do not meet key criteria. Having reviewed a sizeable number of UGM Applications myself, and taking into account the reviews conducted by the Contradictor, I have sufficient confidence in the categorisation process to consider this a fair and reasonable way to deal with the large volume of UGM Applications.
F.6.1 Invalid applications – Category 1 of the UGM Categorisation Register
Of the 6,476 UGM Applications made by the requisite time, Maurice Blackburn identified 109 applications as being invalid, either because the application is illegible, is a duplicate of another application, has been rescinded by the UGM, or is not made by a group member. The Contradictor agreed with this categorisation, as do I. During the Contradictor’s re-review of some categories and during the Court’s review and checks, 16 further duplicates were identified, along with eight applications in fact made by RGMs and three applications which were illegible. I do not need to review each application individually which has been categorised as invalid, because they are either illegible, duplicative, or no longer pressed. The 136 invalid UGM Applications are dismissed. [57]
[57]The invalid applications are listed in Annexure B.
This leaves 6,340 UGM Applications before the Court.
F.6.2 Applications not supported by evidence – Category 2 of the UGM Categorisation Register
There are 618 UGM Applications which are not supported by evidence in the form of a signed affidavit or statutory declaration.[58]
[58]There is one additional application without evidence which was made by a RGM, is therefore treated as having been rescinded, and has already been considered in connection with Category 1.
The Contradictor says that the Court may require UGM Applications to be supported by evidence, as occurred here. I would put this more strongly; in this case the requirement for applications to be supported by evidence is inescapable. The Class Closure Reasons made clear that, in order to be re-admitted to the class, a group member must sufficiently demonstrate unfair prejudice to them in the operation of the Class Closure Orders.[59] In order for the Court to be satisfied that there is unfair prejudice to a UGM in the operation of the Class Closure Orders, there must be evidence before the Court on this point. Critically, there was also an express requirement for evidence in the form of an affidavit stated in the 19 April Orders and the Settlement Notice.
[59][2023] VSC 415, [30].
The Contradictor submits that applications which are not supported by evidence may be dismissed without further consideration. This is said to be consistent with the principles arising from case law that applications for leave to participate in a settlement by UGMs should be supported by evidence in the form of a signed affidavit. Further, the Contradictor says that it would be unfair to UGMs who have provided evidence to waive this requirement for others. I agree with this submission.
Therefore, a UGM Application must be supported by evidence. While the 19 April Orders and the Settlement Notice stipulated that an affidavit was required, I agree with the position taken by Maurice Blackburn and the Contradictor that a signed statutory declaration should also be treated as evidence.
Accordingly, a UGM Application must be supported by evidence in the form of a statutory declaration or affidavit, which must be signed. The requirement for the material to be signed is more than a mere technicality. It is essential as, without a signature, there is no confirmation from the person giving that information that it is true and correct. However, given the profile of many group members in the proceedings, I tend to agree with the more relaxed approach taken by Maurice Blackburn in respect of certain other criteria in respect of the legal requirements that need to be followed when preparing an affidavit for use in this Court.[60] In this regard, I refer to the evidence of Mr Donelly in the First UGM Affidavit:
I expect that the different approaches to evidence and compliance from UGMs reflects the nature of the group membership in these proceedings, which includes individuals who rarely interact with the legal system and/or speak languages other than English. In developing criteria to assess the sufficiency of evidence for the purpose of the [19 April Order], Maurice Blackburn has sought to be cognisant of this and avoid adopting overly strict interpretations, while still respecting the terms of the order made by the Court.
[60]See order 43, chapter 1 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic).
Forms of evidence which do not comply with technical requirements (such as where the affidavit or statutory declaration has not been correctly witnessed, does not contain complete information between the ‘tram tracks’, includes one signature but is not signed on every page, or where documents are not exhibited in the proper manner) were treated by Maurice Blackburn as sufficient for the purposes of meeting the criterion of being supported by evidence. I consider that Maurice Blackburn has struck an appropriate and fair balance here, and I note that the Contradictor also agrees with this approach.
Given the above, it follows that there are 5,722 valid UGM Applications which are supported by evidence before the Court.[61]
[61]The applications which are not supported by evidence are listed in Annexure C.
F.6.3 Applications which do not identify the basis on which leave ought be granted
It was a further key requirement of UGM Applications that they identify the basis on which leave ought be granted. This entails more than a statement of group membership; the UGM must provide an explanation for why they did not register by the Class Closure Deadline. This is a critical part of the Court’s consideration in deciding whether leave ought to be granted to a UGM to participate in a settlement where orders had been made in the proceedings limiting participating group members to those who took steps to register by the Class Closure Deadline.
Of the 5,722 valid UGM Applications supported by evidence, 5,583 contain a statement by the UGM that they are a member of the group, that is, that they fall within Category 6. A subset of these, being 2,237 UGM Applications, fall only within Category 6. That is to say, there are 2,237 applications which consist of a bare statement that the UGM is a member of the group. Clearly, a bare statement of group membership is an insufficient basis for leave to be granted for those persons to participate in the settlement. They do not disclose any reason that they could not register in time. I consider that these 2,237 applications should be dismissed without individual review by the Court,[62] leaving 3,485 applications remaining before the Court.
[62]These 2,237 applications are listed in Annexure D.
UBCA.100.004.0237
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is a bare statement of lack of awareness of the proceeding and deadline without sufficient explanation for why the deadline was missed. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.100.004.0242
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is a bare statement of lack of awareness of the proceeding and deadline without sufficient explanation for why the deadline was missed. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.100.004.0254
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. This group member provides an inconsistent and insufficient explanation for missing the deadline, simultaneously saying that they were unaware of the date and forgot to register by the date. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.100.004.0270
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is a bare statement of lack of awareness of the proceeding and deadline without sufficient explanation for why the deadline was missed. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.100.004.0274
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is a bare statement of lack of awareness of the proceeding and deadline without sufficient explanation for why the deadline was missed. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.100.004.0278
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The explanation for missing the class closure deadline is insufficient. No unfair prejudice is established.
UBCA.100.004.0284
I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The applicant heard from other drivers that they had received correspondence inviting them to register and the applicant took this to mean that they were not eligible to participate, as they had not received correspondence. It is an inadequate explanation for failure to register. There is no explanation given for why they did not check.
Note the name on the Maurice Blackburn register is incorrect.
UBCA.100.005.0016
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant refers to having received no notices and provides an insufficient explanation for missing the deadline. They have not established unfair prejudice.
UBCA.100.005.0027
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant had a lack of knowledge of the proceeding or deadline. They provide an insufficient explanation for missing the deadline and no unfair prejudice is established.
UBCA.100.006.0030
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims that they did not register for fear of the information being collected for a fraudulent purpose. This is an insufficient explanation for missing the deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.100.006.0126
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is a bare statement of lack of awareness of the class action with insufficient reason for missing the deadline. No unfair prejudice.
UBCA.100.007.0007
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is a bare statement of lack of awareness of the proceeding and deadline without sufficient explanation for why the deadline was missed. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.100.008.0001
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The two persons in this application both raise health issues and financial difficulties but do not link those to the registration deadline being missed or state whether they knew of the deadline or proceeding. They do not provide a sufficient explanation and have not established unfair prejudice.
UBCA.100.009.0001
One of four applications omitted in error by Maurice Blackburn in original packaging up of applications. This application is not one of the 656 identified by MB for individual review (Fourth UGM affidavit, [58]-[59]). I reviewed this application individually. I am satisfied that it does not warrant a grant of leave.
UBCA.100.009.0002
One of four applications omitted in error by Maurice Blackburn in original packaging up of applications. This application is not one of the 656 identified by MB for individual review (Fourth UGM affidavit, [58]-[59]). I reviewed this application individually. I am satisfied that it does not warrant a grant of leave.
UBCA.100.009.0003
One of four applications omitted in error by Maurice Blackburn in original packaging up of applications. This application is not one of the 656 identified by MB for individual review (Fourth UGM affidavit, [58]-[59]). I reviewed this application individually. I am satisfied that it does not warrant a grant of leave.
UBCA.100.009.0004
One of four applications omitted in error by Maurice Blackburn in original packaging up of applications. This application is not one of the 656 identified by MB for individual review (Fourth UGM affidavit, [58]-[59]). I reviewed this application individually. I am satisfied that it does not warrant a grant of leave. Applicant says they were overseas from October 2023 to May 2024, which does not explain why they did not register by the class closure deadline, and no other explanation is given.
UBCA.200.001.0001
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.001.0002
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.001.0004
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.001.0005
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.001.0006
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.001.0007
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.001.0011
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.001.0012
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0001
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0002
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0003
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0004
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0005
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant first heard about the proceeding in October 2023 and provides an insufficient explanation for missing the deadline. There is no unfair prejudice.
UBCA.200.002.0006
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0007
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0008
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0009
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0010
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is a bare statement of lack of awareness of the proceeding and deadline without sufficient explanation for why the deadline was missed. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0011
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0012
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0013
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0014
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The application is based on their non-awareness that active steps were needed to register, but they knew of the proceeding. They have not provided sufficient explanation for missing the deadline. Unfair prejudice is not established.
UBCA.200.002.0015
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0016
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0017
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0018
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states that they knew of the proceeding but not that they needed to take active steps. Even having regard to their personal characteristics and vulnerabilities, I consider that this is not a sufficient explanation for failing to register by the deadline. They have not established unfair prejudice.
UBCA.200.002.0019
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0020
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0021
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0022
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0023
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0024
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states that they were aware of the proceeding but not of a requirement to register, and they don’t provide an explanation with any sufficiency to warrant a grant of leave. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0025
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0026
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0027
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0028
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0029
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0030
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0031
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0032
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0033
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0034
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0035
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0036
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0037
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0038
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0039
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0040
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0041
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0042
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0043
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant knew about the proceeding in advance of the registration period but did not know that they had to do anything to participate. The applicant does not provide a sufficient explanation for missing the deadline and has not established unfair prejudice.
UBCA.200.002.0044
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0045
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0046
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0047
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0048
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0049
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0050
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0051
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0052
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0053
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0054
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0055
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0056
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0057
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0058
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0059
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0060
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0061
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0062
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0063
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0064
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0065
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant did, in fact, know about the proceeding through a social media post in October 2023 and contacted Maurice Blackburn about this. They did not provide a sufficient explanation for why they missed the deadline while being aware of the proceeding. They have not established unfair prejudice.
UBCA.200.002.0066
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0067
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0068
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0069
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0070
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0071
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0072
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0073
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0074
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0075
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0076
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0077
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0078
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0079
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0080
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0081
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0082
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0083
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0084
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0085
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0086
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0087
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0088
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0089
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0090
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0091
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0092
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0093
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0094
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0095
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0096
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0097
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0098
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0099
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0100
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0101
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0102
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0103
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0104
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0106
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0107
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0108
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0109
UBCA.200.002.0110
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0111
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0112
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0113
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0114
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0115
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0116
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0117
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0118
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0119
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0120
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0121
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0122
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0123
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0124
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0125
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0126
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0127
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0128
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0129
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0130
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0131
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0132
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0133
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0134
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0135
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0136
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0137
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0138
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0139
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0140
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0141
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0142
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0143
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0144
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0145
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0146
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The evidence of the applicant is contradictory in respect of when they knew about the proceeding and there is an overall lack of specificity. They have not provided a sufficient explanation for missing the deadline. They have not established unfair prejudice.
UBCA.200.002.0147
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
UBCA.200.002.0148
I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.
SCHEDULE OF PARTIES
| S ECI 2019 01926 | |
| NICOS ANDRIANAKIS | Plaintiff |
| - v - | |
| UBER TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED (4849283) | First Defendant |
| UBER INTERNATIONAL HOLDING B.V. (RSIN 851 929 357) | Second Defendant |
| UBER B.V. (RSIN 852 071 589) | Third Defendant |
| UBER AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 160 299 865) | Fourth Defendant |
| RASIER OPERATIONS B.V. (RSIN 853 682 318) | Fifth Defendant |
| UBER PACIFIC HOLDINGS B.V. (RSIN 855 779 330) | Sixth Defendant |
| UBER PACIFIC HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 609 590 463) | Seventh Defendant |
| S ECI 2020 01834 | |
| JAMAL SALEM IN HER CAPACITY AS EXECUTOR FOR THE ESTATE OF ANWAR SALEM | Plaintiff |
| - v - | |
| UBER TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED (4849283) | First Defendant |
| UBER INTERNATIONAL HOLDING B.V. (RSIN 851 929 357) | Second Defendant |
| UBER B.V. (RSIN 852 071 589) | Third Defendant |
| UBER AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 160 299 865) | Fourth Defendant |
| RASIER OPERATIONS B.V. (RSIN 853 682 318) | Fifth Defendant |
| UBER PACIFIC HOLDINGS B.V. (RSIN 855 779 330) | Sixth Defendant |
| UBER PACIFIC HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 609 590 463) | Seventh Defendant |
| S ECI 2020 03593 | |
| PETER STEWART | Plaintiff |
| - v - | |
| UBER TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED (4849283) | First Defendant |
| UBER INTERNATIONAL HOLDING B.V. (RSIN 851 929 357) | Second Defendant |
| UBER B.V. (RSIN 852 071 589) | Third Defendant |
| UBER AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 160 299 865) | Fourth Defendant |
| RASIER OPERATIONS B.V. (RSIN 853 682 318) | Fifth Defendant |
| UBER PACIFIC HOLDINGS B.V. (RSIN 855 779 330) | Sixth Defendant |
| UBER PACIFIC HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 609 590 463) | Seventh Defendant |
| S ECI 2020 04787 | |
| H.D. ANDREE & M. ANDREE (a partnership) | Plaintiff |
| - v - | |
| UBER TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED (4849283) | First Defendant |
| UBER INTERNATIONAL HOLDING B.V. (RSIN 851 929 357) | Second Defendant |
| UBER B.V. (RSIN 852 071 589) | Third Defendant |
| UBER AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 160 299 865) | Fourth Defendant |
| RASIER OPERATIONS B.V. (RSIN 853 682 318) | Fifth Defendant |
| UBER PACIFIC HOLDINGS B.V. (RSIN 855 779 330) | Sixth Defendant |
| UBER PACIFIC HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 609 590 463) | Seventh Defendant |
7
20
0