Danny Domenico Paris v Uber Australia Pty Ltd Summary

[2025] FWC 1387

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.536LU - Application for an unfair deactivation remedy

Danny Domenico Paris
v

Uber Australia Pty Ltd

(UDE2025/25)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAUNDERS

NEWCASTLE, 20 MAY 2025

Application for an unfair deactivation remedy – application dismissed

Mr Paris has filed an unfair deactivation application against Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd t/a Uber (Respondent).

Mr Paris attended a directions hearing, by telephone, before me on 22 April 2025. During the directions hearing Mr Paris explained that he had been reactivated by the Respondent but he lost income in the period between his deactivation and his reactivation. I asked Mr Paris what outcome he was seeking and whether he wished to proceed with his unfair deactivation application against the Respondent. I outlined the process that would be followed and the directions that would be made to prepare the matter for hearing if Mr Paris wished to proceed to a final hearing to have his unfair deactivation application heard and determined. Mr Paris variously stated, “forget about it”, “end this”, and “this is a waste of time”. I then asked Mr Paris whether he wished to withdraw/discontinue his unfair deactivation application, to which he said “no” and he just wanted the application to “sit there”. I explained to Mr Paris that it was not possible for his unfair deactivation application to remain on foot and not proceed to a hearing or have anything else done in relation to it. Ultimately, Mr Paris hung up and departed the directions hearing.

On 22 April 2025, I issued directions requiring that, by 4pm on 6 May 2025, Mr Paris file in the Fair Work Commission and serve on the Respondent all the witness statements, documents and submissions on which he wishes to rely in support of his claim that he was unfairly deactivated and the remedy he seeks for being unfairly deactivated.

Mr Paris has not complied with the direction requiring him to file and serve material by 4pm on 6 May 2025.

The Respondent has applied to have Mr Paris’s unfair deactivation application dismissed on the basis that he unreasonably failed to comply with the directions made on 22 April 2025. Mr Paris was given an opportunity to respond to this application. He did not do so.

I am satisfied that Mr Paris has unreasonably failed to comply with the directions made on 22 April 2025. Mr Paris has not given any indication that he wishes to pursue his unfair deactivation application against the Respondent.

Having regard to all the circumstances, I consider it appropriate to exercise my discretion under s 536M of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) to dismiss Mr Paris’s unfair deactivation application against the Respondent.

Mr Paris’s unfair deactivation application against the Respondent is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission has dismissed an application by Danny Domenico Paris against Uber Australia Pty Ltd for unfair deactivation, following his failure to comply with procedural directions. The matter was initially brought by Mr Paris who claimed that his deactivation from the Uber platform was unfair. During a directions hearing, Mr Paris expressed his dissatisfaction with the process but did not wish to discontinue his application, leaving it to "sit there." The Commission issued specific directions for Mr Paris to file and serve all necessary documents by a certain date to proceed with his claim. Despite being given the opportunity to respond, Mr Paris failed to comply with these directions and did not engage with the application further.

The legal issues before the Commission involved determining whether Mr Paris had unreasonably failed to comply with the procedural directions and whether his application could proceed under these circumstances. Given that Mr Paris had not engaged with the application process meaningfully and had not provided any documents or evidence to support his claim, the Commission found that his failure to comply with the directions was unreasonable. Furthermore, the Commission noted that Mr Paris had indicated no desire to pursue his application, thereby rendering it effectively abandoned.

The Commission exercised its discretion under the Fair Work Act 2009 to dismiss the application. The decision was based on the unreasonable non-compliance with procedural directions and the lack of any intention by Mr Paris to pursue his application. The dismissal was seen as an appropriate outcome given the circumstances of the case and the procedural shortcomings.

In conclusion, the Fair Work Commission dismissed the unfair deactivation application by Mr Paris against Uber Australia Pty Ltd, reflecting the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and the necessity for applicants to actively pursue their claims. The dismissal was effective and final, closing the matter without further proceedings.

Danny Domenico Paris v Uber Australia Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established