Andrianakis v Uber Technologies Inc; Salem v Uber Technologies Inc (No 2) - [2024] VSC 436

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION
GROUP PROCEEDINGS (CLASS ACTIONS)

S ECI 2019 01926

BETWEEN:

NICOS ANDRIANAKIS	Plaintiff
and
UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC & ORS	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 & ORS	Defendants

S ECI 2020 03593

AND BETWEEN

PETER STEWART	Plaintiff
and
UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC & ORS	Defendants

S ECI 2020 04787

AND BETWEEN

H.D. ANDREE & M. ANDREE (a partnership)	Plaintiff
and
UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC & ORS	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Matthews J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 July 2024
DATE OF REASONS:	29 July 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Andrianakis v Uber Technologies Inc; Salem v Uber Technologies Inc (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 436

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Group Proceedings – “Soft” class closure orders – Whether or not to consider applications by unregistered group members to participate in the proposed settlement and objections to the proposed settlement which have not been submitted within the time ordered by the Court – Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic), ss 33ZF, 33ZG.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs in each proceeding	Ms M Szydzik SC and Ms A Staker	Maurice Blackburn Lawyers
For the Defendants in each proceeding	Ms M Ellicott	Herbert Smith Freehills
For Harbour Fund III, L.P (the funder)	Mr N De Young KC and Mr K Raghavan	Webb Henderson

HER HONOUR:

Introduction and background

Each of these proceedings is a group proceeding commenced under Part 4A of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) (Act).
The trial in proceedings S ECI 2019 01926 and S ECI 2020 01834 was due to commence on 18 March 2024. The evening prior, the parties reached an in-principle settlement of the proceedings (Proposed Settlement). The Proposed Settlement also includes the claims made in the other two proceedings, being proceedings S ECI 2020 04787 and S ECI 2020 03593. Unless it is otherwise necessary to distinguish between the four proceedings, they will collectively be referred to as the Uber Group Proceedings.
It is a condition precedent of the settlement deed that the Court’s approval of the Proposed Settlement be obtained. It is also a requirement under s 33V(1) of the Act that any settlement of a group proceeding receives approval from the Court. The plaintiffs’ application for approval of the Proposed Settlement is listed for hearing on 9 and 10 September 2024.
These reasons concern certain issues which arose for determination at a directions hearing, held on 24 July 2024, regarding the application for approval of the Proposed Settlement.

Orders made on 21 July 2023

On 3 July 2023, a hearing took place before Justice Nichols in the proceedings S ECI 2019 01926 and S ECI 2020 01834 in which the parties jointly sought orders for the fixing of a date by which group members may opt out of the proceedings and for relevant notices…

Grounds of appeal

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

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

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

Consideration

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

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

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Andrianakis v Uber Technologies Inc; Salem v Uber Technologi... and more:

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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] VSC 436
Decision Date: 29 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Andrianakis v Uber Technologies Inc; Salem v Uber Technologies Inc (No 2), the applicants, Andrianakis and Salem, sought to intervene in a group proceeding against Uber Technologies Inc, an American company that operates a ride-sharing platform in Australia. The applicants were registered class members, and their participation in the group proceeding was a condition of the proposed settlement of the proceeding. However, Uber opposed the applications for participation on the basis that the applicants had not lodged their objections to the proposed settlement within the time ordered by the Court. The applicants sought an extension of time to participate in the proceeding and to object to the proposed settlement. The legal issues that the Court had to decide were whether or not to permit the applicants to participate in the proceeding and whether or not to extend the time for the applicants to object to the proposed settlement. The Court considered the relevant provisions of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) and found that the Court had discretion to extend the time for the applicants to participate in the proceeding and to object to the proposed settlement. The Court found that it was in the interests of justice to grant the applications for participation and to extend the time for the applicants to object to the proposed settlement. The Court found that the applicants had made a prima facie case for extending the time and that Uber had not demonstrated any prejudice that would result from the extensions. The Court noted that the applicants had made a genuine attempt to comply with the orders of the Court and that any delay in objecting to the proposed settlement was not attributable to them. The Court also found that the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable and that the applicants would not be prejudiced by the extensions. The Court granted the applications for participation and for an extension of time to object to the proposed settlement. The applicants were permitted to participate in the proceeding and to object to the proposed settlement within the extended time. The Court noted that the proposed settlement was subject to the approval of the Court and that the applicants could still object to the proposed settlement if they wished to do so.

Orders