JUDGE:	MACAULAY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	4 and 6 September 2019
DATE OF RULING:	20 December 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Andrianakis v Uber Technologies (Ruling No 1)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 850

---

TORT – Conspiracy – Unlawful means conspiracy – Claim that defendants combined with the intention of injuring the plaintiff and group members by unlawful means – Whether the pleading of the subjective element of intention to injure by unlawful means adopts correct legal test.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Pleadings – Application to strike out statement of claim – Whether statement of claim fails to plead a cause of action or is embarrassing – Whether conspirators and overt acts adequately identified.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Group proceeding – Application that proceeding not continue as group proceeding – Single Victorian plaintiff representing group members in four Australian States – Whether plaintiff has a sufficient interest to represent all group members or can otherwise adequately or effectively represent all group members – Whether any substantial common questions of fact or law – Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) Part 4A ss 33C, 33H, 33N , 33ZF.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Service out of Australia pursuant to r 7.02 Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 – Foreign defendants’ application to set aside service – Rules 7.04 and 8.08 – Whether r 7.02 as amended by SR No 109/2016 was made without power - Adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Court – Subject matter jurisdiction of the Court – Source of authority for judges of the court to make rules relating to service of process out of Australia – s 25(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic).

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Security for costs – Quantum of security to be provided – Application for security for costs by only two of seven defendants – Approach to the quantification of security for costs of only some among multiple defendants where costs include common costs.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr David Collins SC Ms Melanie Szydzik Ms Siobhan Kelly	Maurice Blackburn Pty Ltd
For the Defendants	Mr Neil Young QC Mr David Sulan	Jones Day

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 1

Background......................................................................................................................................... 3

Should the ASOC be struck out?................................................................................................... 4

The pleaded claim in overview.................................................................................................. 6
Pleading principles..................................................................................................................... 12
Does the ASOC fail to adequately identify the conspirators and their overt acts?........... 14
Does the ASOC adequately plead an intention to injure by unlawful means?................. 31

Should orders be made under Part 4A of the Supreme Court Act?........................................ 42

Are the circumstances similar or related: s 33C(1)(b)?.......................................................... 47
Is there a common substantial question of law or fact: s33C(1)(c)?..................................... 48
Can Mr Andrianakis represent group members outside of Victoria?................................ 51
Can Mr Andrianakis call evidence only relevant to claims outside…

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.

Continue reading Andrianakis v Uber Technologies (Ruling No 1)

Details

AGLC: Andrianakis v Uber Technologies (Ruling No 1) [2019] VSC 850
Case: [2019] VSC 850
Decision Date: 20 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Andrianakis v Uber Technologies, the plaintiff sought to hold Uber and other defendants liable for a conspiracy to injure the plaintiff and a group of members through unlawful means. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants combined with the intention to cause injury by unlawful means. The defendants challenged the plaintiff's statement of claim on various grounds, including the adequacy of the pleadings regarding the conspiracy, the appropriateness of the proceeding as a group proceeding, the validity of service out of Australia, and the quantum of security for costs.

The court examined whether the plaintiff's statement of claim sufficiently identified the conspirators and the overt acts, and whether it adequately pleaded a cause of action. The court also considered the plaintiff's capacity to represent the group proceeding and the presence of common questions of fact or law. Additionally, the defendants challenged the adjudicatory and subject matter jurisdiction of the court in relation to service out of Australia and questioned the source of authority for the rules relating to such service.

The court ruled that the statement of claim adequately identified the conspirators and the overt acts and was not embarrassing or bound to fail. It found that the proceeding was appropriate as a group proceeding and that the plaintiff had a sufficient interest to represent all group members. The court upheld the validity of service out of Australia and dismissed the application to set aside service. Regarding security for costs, the court decided that the plaintiff was entitled to an order for security for costs from two of the defendants, with an appropriate quantum taking into account the common costs.

The court ordered that the proceeding continue as a group proceeding and that security for costs be provided by two of the defendants. The court also dismissed the application to strike out the statement of claim and the application to set aside service. The ruling clarified the legal standards for pleading conspiracy and the capacity of a plaintiff to represent a group proceeding.

Orders