Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Najafi v Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCATCD 153 Hearing dates: 23 February 2023 Date of orders: 24 February 2023 Decision date: 24 February 2023 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: R C Titterton OAM, Senior Member Decision: 1. The respondents’ application that applicant's claim be struck out or dismissed on the basis that it is misconceived, frivolous and lacking in substance is dismissed.
2. The applicant’s application is dismissed.
Catchwords: CONSUMER LAW – deactivation of Uber driver’s access to Uber App - breach of contract - reinstatement - damages
Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), ss 38(2), 55
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW), ss 79I, 79J, 79N, 79U,
Cases Cited: Ali v Raisier Pacific VOF, published on 28 July 2023 (being the reasons for decision in matter GEN 23/16166)
Burns v Corbett; Burns v Gaynor, Attorney General for New South Wales v Burns; Attorney General for New South Wales v Burns New South Wales v Bums [2018] HCA 15
Burns v Corbett; Gaynor v Burns [2017] NSWCA 3;
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Arif Najafi (Applicant)
Raisier Pacific Pty Ltd (First Respondent)
Uber B.V. (Second Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Dentons (Respondents)
Applicant (self-represented)
File Number(s): 2023/00370668
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
-
By application filed 18 October 2023, the applicant seeks an order that the respondents pay him $10,000.00.
-
To use colloquial language, the applicant was an Uber driver.
-
The reasons for seeking the order are stated in his application as:
On 03/02/2023 time 1.30 am I picked up a man Rider from [XXSX] first he asked me what time to you finish I said maybe you are last trip or maybe more request come when we arrived at drop off location, I stopped he told me go on left street to [XXXX]
I gone at there at the corner he said stop here I stopped he asked me do you like to have sex with me I said sorry I don't than he gets off from my car. In the morning around 9.00 am I waked up I saw Uber send me text message the Uber said we call your mobile was switched off a rider gave a report, I thing around 12.30 pm someone called me from Uber he asked have you got any problems with rider do you remember.
I said no I can't remember I had any problems with Riders in the evening I wanted start the job I saw the Uber deactivated my account, I read the message Uber said you talked sexually with rider then I checked my Riders which Rider gave report when I understand this rider gave report again I reactivated my account the Uber said we can't do if have any prove we do I asked them you should be asked the prove from rider he got…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Najafi v Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2023] NSWCATCD 153
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether Mr. Najafi's deactivation from the Uber App constituted a breach of contract. The court had to consider the terms of the agreement between the parties, including the provisions regarding the deactivation of driver accounts, and whether Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd had acted in accordance with these terms. Additionally, the court needed to determine if Mr. Najafi's deactivation was justified under the circumstances and whether his claims for reinstatement and damages were valid.
The court held that Mr. Najafi's claims were misconceived and lacked substance. It found that Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd had not breached the contract by deactivating Mr. Najafi's account, as there were valid reasons for doing so according to the terms of the agreement. The court emphasised that the decision to deactivate an account is within the respondent's discretion, provided it is exercised in accordance with the contractual terms and applicable law. Consequently, the application for reinstatement and damages was dismissed, and the respondent's application to strike out or dismiss the claim was also rejected.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The respondents’ application that applicant's claim be struck out or dismissed on the basis that it is misconceived, frivolous and lacking in substance is dismissed.
2. The applicant’s application is dismissed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.