Andrianakis v Uber Technologies (Ruling No 3) - [2021] VSC 744

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

GROUP PROCEEDINGS LIST

S ECI 2019 01926

NICOS ANDRIANAKIS	Plaintiff
v
UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC and others (according to the attached schedule)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	MACAULAY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 September 2021
DATE OF RULING:	12 November 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Andrianakis v Uber Technologies (Ruling No 3)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 744

---

CIVIL PROCEDURE – Group proceeding – Appointment of sample group members – Object of group proceedings – Whether some issues involve hypothetical and advisory questions without sample group members – Whether appointments of sample group members facilitate efficient determination – Matthews v SPI Electricity Pty Ltd (Ruling No 5) (2012) 35 VR 615, Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Pty Ltd [2003] VSC 27, Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2001] VSC 372, Dillon v RBS Group (Australia) Pty Ltd & Ors (2017) 252 FCR 150, Brady v NULIS Nominees (Australia) Limited in its capacity as trustee of the MLC Super Fund [2021] FCA 999 – Supreme Court Act 1986, s 33Q and s 33ZF.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Ms M Szydzik with Ms A Staker	Maurice Blackburn Lawyers
For the Defendant	Mr D Sulan with Ms A Campbell	Herbert Smith Freehills

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

In 2019, Mr Nicos Andrianakis, a Victorian taxi licence holder, operator and driver, commenced a group proceeding on behalf of all other Victorian point to point passenger transport service owners, operators and drivers and on behalf of similar owners, operators and drivers in New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia. The proceeding was brought against Uber Technologies Inc and six other entities within the Uber group of companies, five of which were incorporated in jurisdictions outside of Australia, following the establishment of the UberX ride-sharing service in Australia in 2014. The cause of action upon which Mr Andrianakis relies is the tort of conspiracy to injure by unlawful means.

One of the purposes of group proceedings under Part 4A of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (‘the Act’), is to enable the Court to resolve as many common issues as is practicable by virtue of the initial trial so as to obviate the necessity for separate trials of the other group members’ claims.[1] In facilitating that object, the Court may appoint sample group members to enable the Court to make findings and give judgment in relation to claims of sample group members in circumstances where the claim by the representative plaintiff may not cover the claims of all group members.[2]
[1]Matthews v SPI Electricity Pty Ltd (Ruling No 5) (2012) 35 VR 615, 617 [3] (J Forrest J) (‘Matthews’).
[2]Ibid 617 [4], 620 [15] and [18] (J Forrest J); Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2001] VSC 372, [32]-[33] (Gillard J).

In this proceeding, it is common ground between the…

Grounds of appeal

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

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

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

Consideration

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

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

Continue reading Andrianakis v Uber Technologies (Ruling No 3)

Details

AGLC: Andrianakis v Uber Technologies (Ruling No 3) [2021] VSC 744
Case: [2021] VSC 744
Decision Date: 12 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a challenge by the defendants, Uber Technologies and others, to the appointment of sample group members in a group proceeding brought by the plaintiff, Andrianakis, against them. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff had initiated a class action against the defendants, alleging breaches of consumer protection laws and seeking compensation for the affected class members. The defendants contested the appointment of sample group members, arguing that their appointment was unnecessary and potentially inefficient in resolving the claims.

The court was required to determine whether the appointment of sample group members was necessary for the efficient resolution of the issues in the proceeding. The defendants contended that some of the issues involved hypothetical and advisory questions that could be determined without the appointment of sample group members. The court considered whether the appointment of sample group members facilitated the efficient determination of the proceeding and whether it aligned with the object of group proceedings as outlined in the Supreme Court Act 1986.

The court examined relevant authorities and found that the appointment of sample group members was not strictly necessary for the resolution of all issues in the proceeding. However, the court held that the appointment of sample group members could still facilitate the efficient determination of the proceeding by allowing the court to consider representative issues and potentially resolve them on behalf of the class. The court concluded that the appointment of sample group members was appropriate in this case, as it would enable the court to address key issues that were common to the class members and streamline the proceedings.

The court ordered that sample group members be appointed to assist in the resolution of the proceeding. The defendants were required to comply with the court's directions regarding the selection and appointment of sample group members. The court's decision emphasised the importance of considering the efficiency and effectiveness of group proceedings, while also ensuring that the rights of class members were adequately protected.

Orders