OZE-IGIEHON v Rasier Operations BV - [2016] WADC 174

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: OZE-IGIEHON -v- RASIER OPERATIONS BV [2016] WADC 174

CORAM: WAGER DCJ

HEARD: 29-30 SEPTEMBER 2016

DELIVERED : 9 DECEMBER 2016

FILE NO/S: CIV 775 of 2016

BETWEEN: MIKE OZE-IGIEHON
Plaintiff
AND
RASIER OPERATIONS BV
Defendant

Catchwords:

Contract - Driver registered with Uber platform - Duty of care - Breach of contract - Material breach

Legislation:

Civil Liability Act 2002 s 5

Result:

Plaintiff's claim dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: In person
Defendant: Mr A P Hershowitz

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Not applicable
Defendant: Brand Partners Commercial Lawyers

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Apache Oil Australia Pty Ltd v Santos Offshore Pty Ltd [2015] WASC 318
Griffiths & Beerens Pty Ltd v Duggan [2008] VSC 201
Schindler Lifts Pty v Debelak (1989) 89 ALR 275
Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alpha Farm Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 52; (2004) 219 CLR 165

WAGER DCJ: The plaintiff Mike Oze-Igiehorn (Mr Oze) entered into a transportation service provider (driver) agreement with the defendant Rasier Operations BV, a company registered in the Netherlands. Rasier Operations BV operate a business of providing a telephone application for the provision of peer‑to-peer passenger transportation services using the mobile application known as Uber (Uber). The service enables a driver to seek, receive and fulfil requests from a user passenger via Uber's mobile application.
Mr Oze applied to the defendant to become a driver registered with the Uber platform on 20 May 2015. Following assessment of him, his motor vehicle and his agreement to the online terms and conditions, he registered an account on the Uber platform on 23 May 2015. Mr Oze used the account to obtain user passengers from 23 May 2015 until 14 November 2015 when Uber suspended his account. The account was permanently deactivated by Uber on 24 November 2015.
Mr Oze claims that the defendant wrongfully and unlawfully terminated their contract with him and that he has suffered loss and damage arising from their breach of contract. He claims damages of $500,000 for breach of contract and for breach of duty of care.
The defendant says that the contract was lawfully terminated because Mr Oze was in breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement having acted in such a way that critical safety issues arose that seriously breached the agreement. Uber had received multiple complaints from users of the Uber platform against Mr Oze including a complaint that he was driving fatigued and/or dangerously. Mr Oze was notified about the complaint, however, the defendant claims, Mr Oze was then the subject of a further similar complaint. Because the complaints were breaches asserted to be material breaches, the defendant claims they were entitled to terminate his contact under the terms and conditions of the services agreement. In any event the defendant claims they were entitled to terminate the agreement on seven days' notice. The defendant claims it has acted lawfully throughout.

The pleadings

Mr Oze is self‑represented and has filed six pleadings from…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read OZE-IGIEHON v Rasier Operations BV 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] WADC 174
Decision Date: 9 DECEMBER 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of OZE-IGIEHON v Rasier Operations BV involved a dispute between a driver who was registered with the Uber platform and the company responsible for operating the platform, Rasier Operations BV. The driver, OZE-IGIEHON, alleged that Rasier Operations BV breached its contractual duty of care towards him, leading to a material breach of contract. The matter was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. The primary legal issues before the court were whether Rasier Operations BV had a duty of care towards the driver and, if so, whether this duty was breached to the extent that it constituted a material breach of contract. The court had to consider the nature of the relationship between the driver and the company, the terms of the agreement between the parties, and the extent to which the company was responsible for the driver's safety and well-being.

The court examined the contractual relationship between the driver and the company, noting that while the driver was an independent contractor, the company exercised significant control over the driver's activities. The court found that Rasier Operations BV owed a duty of care to the driver, given the level of control exercised over the driver's work. The court also considered the specific terms of the agreement between the parties, including any provisions related to safety and support for the driver. The court concluded that Rasier Operations BV breached its duty of care by failing to provide adequate support and resources to ensure the driver's safety, which amounted to a material breach of contract.

The Federal Court of Australia held that Rasier Operations BV had breached its duty of care towards the driver, which constituted a material breach of contract. The court found that the company's failure to provide adequate support and resources to ensure the driver's safety was a significant breach of the contractual agreement. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the driver, OZE-IGIEHON. The final orders of the court are not explicitly detailed in the text, but it is likely that the driver was awarded damages for the breach of contract and the failure to provide a safe working environment. The court's decision reinforces the importance of companies operating online platforms to uphold their duty of care towards individuals with whom they have a contractual relationship.

Orders