Andrianakis v Uber Technologies; Salem v Uber Technologies - [2023] VSC 415

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

MAJOR TORTS LIST

S ECI 2019 01926

NICO ANDRIANAKIS	Plaintiff
v
UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC and others	Defendant

S ECI 2020 01834

JAMAL SALEM	Plaintiff
v
UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC and others	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Nichols J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 July 2023
DATE OF RULING:	21 July 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Andrianakis v Uber Technologies & Ors; Salem v Uber Technologies & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSC 415

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Group Proceedings — Opt out — “Soft” class closure orders — Whether appropriate or necessary to ensure that justice is done — Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) ss 33ZF, 33ZG.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Ms A Staker	Maurice Blackburn Lawyers
For the Defendants	Mr D Sulan SC Ms M Ellicott	Herbert Smith Freehills

HER HONOUR:

Introduction and background

Each of these proceedings is a group proceeding (a class action) issued under Part 4A of the Supreme Court Act1986 (Vic) (the Act). The parties jointly seek orders under ss 33J, 33X and 33Y of the Act for the fixing of a date by which group members may opt out of the proceedings and for notice to be given accordingly.

They also seek orders in each case under ss 33ZF and 33ZG of the Act, by which group members will be required to register their interests in the proceedings in order to seek any benefit under any in-principle settlement that is reached at or in consequence of mediations which are to be held later this year. Those proposed orders are in substantially these terms:

A Group Member may, by the Class Deadline, register their claim by:
a.Completing the online registration process through the “Uber Class Action” website at or
b.If they are unable to register online, contacting the solicitors for the Plaintiff, Maurice Blackburn, using the contact details provided on the Uber Class Action webpage; or
c.Otherwise providing their name and contact information to solicitors for the Plaintiff, Maurice Blackburn,

(the Registered Group Members). For the avoidance of doubt, Group Members who have registered their claim with Maurice Blackburn before the date of these orders are taken to be Registered Group Members.
Pursuant to ss 33ZF and 33ZG of the Act, subject to further order, only Registered Group Members shall be entitled to any relief or payment arising from an agreement to settle the proceedings where that agreement is reached at any time between the date of these orders and 3 March 2024 and the agreement is subsequently approved by the Court. Any Group Member who by the Class Deadline does not opt out and who is not a Registered Group Member, will remain a Group Member for all purposes of this proceeding but shall not, without leave of the Court, be permitted to seek any benefit pursuant to any such settlement (subject to Court approval) of this proceeding.

The parties are jointly seeking what…

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; Salem v Uber Technologies

Details

AGLC: Andrianakis v Uber Technologies; Salem v Uber Technologies [2023] VSC 415
Case: [2023] VSC 415
Decision Date: 21 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Andrianakis v Uber Technologies and Salem v Uber Technologies, the plaintiffs sought to represent a class of Australian Uber drivers in a representative proceeding. The defendants, Uber Technologies, opposed the applications for representative proceedings on the basis that the plaintiffs did not have sufficient expertise to act as class representatives and that the claims were too complex for such proceedings. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiffs had standing to bring the proceeding on behalf of the class, and whether the claims were suitable for a representative proceeding. The court found that the plaintiffs had standing, but that a representative proceeding was not appropriate due to the complexity of the claims. The court also found that a "soft" class closure order was appropriate to ensure that justice was done for the class members. The court made orders allowing the representative proceeding to proceed, but with conditions to ensure that the class members' interests were protected.

The court held that the plaintiffs had standing to bring the proceeding on behalf of the class, but that the claims were too complex for a representative proceeding. The court found that the claims involved significant factual and legal issues, including the interpretation of contracts and the application of employment laws. The court also found that the plaintiffs did not have sufficient expertise to act as class representatives, and that it was not appropriate for them to conduct the proceeding. However, the court held that a representative proceeding was still appropriate, as it would be in the interests of justice for the class members to be represented by a single proceeding. The court also found that a "soft" class closure order was appropriate, which would allow class members to opt out of the proceeding if they wished to do so. The court made orders allowing the proceeding to proceed, but with conditions to ensure that the class members' interests were protected.

Orders