Rehman v Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd - [2024] NSWCATCD 3

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Rehman v Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCATCD 3
Hearing dates: 1 February 2024
Date of orders: 13 February 2024
Decision date: 13 February 2024
Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division
Before: Graham Ellis SC, Senior Member
Decision:
1   The application is dismissed.
2   Any evidence, and submissions not exceeding five pages, upon which the respondents wish to rely in relation to costs are to be provided to the Tribunal and the applicant within 14 days of the date of these orders.
3   Any evidence, and submissions in response not exceeding five pages, upon which the applicant wishes to rely in relation to costs are to be filed and served within the following 14 days.
4   Any evidence, and submissions not exceeding two pages, upon which the respondents wish to rely in relation to costs, strictly in reply, are to be filed and served within the following 7 days.
5 Each party’s submissions should indicate whether it is agreed that an order should be made, under s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), for costs to be determined on the papers, without the need for a further hearing.

Catchwords:
CONSUMER LAW - Termination of Uber driver - breach of contract - reinstatement - damages - observations on such claims

Legislation Cited:
Australian Consumer Law
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)
Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Ahmad v Portier Pacific Pty Ltd,
21 September 2023, Member Ringrose
Ali v Rasier Pacific V.O.F.,
3 August 2023, Member Lynch
Ashby v Slipper [2014] FCAFC 15
BPU v NSW Trustee & Guardian
[2016] NSWCATAP 87
Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34
Burns v Corbett [2017] NSWCA 3
Commonweatlh v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd
[1991] HCA 54
eMove Pty Ltd v Dickinson [2015] NSWCATAP 94
Fitzpatrick Investments Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue
[2015] NSWCATAD 103
Gallagher v Masters Installation Pty Ltd
[2017] NSWCATAP 117
Gerrard v Slamar [2004] WASC 253
Mahon v Air New Zealand Ltd [1984] AC 808
McCrohan v Harith [2010] NSWCA 87
Megerditchian v Kumond Homes Pty Ltd
[2014] NSWCATAP 120
Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11
Pacorp Holdings Pty Ltd v Waller
[2017] NSWCATAP 167
Rodney v Stricke [2018] NSWCATAP 136
Sabouni v Develop Building and Developments Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 31
Troulis v Vanvoukakis (1998) NSWCA 237

Texts Cited:
None cited

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Muhammad Zia Ur Rehman (Applicant)
Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd (First Respondent)
Uber B.V. (Second Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
M Murray-Baptista, Dentons (Respondents)
Applicant (self-represented)

File Number(s): 2023/00373879 (formerly GEN 23/43741)
Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

The business of Uber involves (1) receiving requests from people who wish to be driven from one location to another (users), (2) providing those requests to drivers, who are independent contractors rather than employees, (3) receiving payment from users, and (4) making payments, net of Uber’s charge, to drivers.
That pairing…

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 Rehman 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

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: [2024] NSWCATCD 3
Decision Date: 13 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Rehman v Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd, the applicant, Rehman, sought reinstatement and damages following his termination as a driver for Uber. The case was heard and determined by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether Rehman's termination from Uber was unlawful and, if so, whether he was entitled to reinstatement or damages. The central contention was whether Uber had breached its contractual obligations towards Rehman, who claimed he was unfairly dismissed without proper notice or opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal considered the nature of the contractual relationship between Uber and its drivers, focusing on whether it was a genuine independent contractor relationship or if Rehman was, in fact, an employee. It was noted that the classification of the relationship was pivotal as it determined the rights and obligations of both parties under the contract. The Tribunal also assessed whether Uber's decision to terminate Rehman was procedurally fair and whether it complied with any applicable terms of the contract or relevant employment legislation. Given the independent contractor status, the Tribunal examined if the termination process adhered to the agreed terms and conditions set forth in the driver agreement.

Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the application for reinstatement and damages, finding that Uber had not breached any contractual obligations in terminating Rehman. The Tribunal concluded that the termination was conducted in accordance with the terms of the driver agreement, and Rehman's claims for procedural unfairness were not substantiated. The Tribunal also addressed the potential implications of such claims, noting the importance of clear contractual terms and proper procedures in protecting both parties' rights and obligations. The orders included provisions for the exchange of evidence and submissions regarding costs, specifying timelines and page limits for each party's submissions, and encouraging the parties to consider whether a further hearing was necessary for determining costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1 The application is dismissed.

2 Any evidence, and submissions not exceeding five pages, upon which the respondents wish to rely in relation to costs are to be provided to the Tribunal and the applicant within 14 days of the date of these orders.

3 Any evidence, and submissions in response not exceeding five pages, upon which the applicant wishes to rely in relation to costs are to be filed and served within the following 14 days.

4 Any evidence, and submissions not exceeding two pages, upon which the respondents wish to rely in relation to costs, strictly in reply, are to be filed and served within the following 7 days.

5 Each party’s submissions should indicate whether it is agreed that an order should be made, under s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), for costs to be determined on the papers, without the need for a further hearing.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Rehman v Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCATCD 3
Hearing dates:	1 February 2024
Date of orders:	13 February 2024
Decision date:	13 February 2024
Jurisdiction:	Consumer and Commercial Division
Before:	Graham Ellis SC, Senior Member
Decision:	1 The application is dismissed. 2 Any evidence, and submissions not exceeding five pages, upon which the respondents wish to rely in relation to costs are to be provided to the Tribunal and the applicant within 14 days of the date of these orders. 3 Any evidence, and submissions in response not exceeding five pages, upon which the applicant wishes to rely in relation to costs are to be filed and served within the following 14 days. 4 Any evidence, and submissions not exceeding two pages, upon which the respondents wish to rely in relation to costs, strictly in reply, are to be filed and served within the following 7 days. 5 Each party’s submissions should indicate whether it is agreed that an order should be made, under s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), for costs to be determined on the papers, without the need for a further hearing.
Catchwords:	CONSUMER LAW - Termination of Uber driver - breach of contract - reinstatement - damages - observations on such claims
Legislation Cited:	Australian Consumer Law Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Ahmad v Portier Pacific Pty Ltd, 21 September 2023, Member Ringrose Ali v Rasier Pacific V.O.F., 3 August 2023, Member Lynch Ashby v Slipper [2014] FCAFC 15 BPU v NSW Trustee & Guardian [2016] NSWCATAP 87 Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34 Burns v Corbett [2017] NSWCA 3 Commonweatlh v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 54 eMove Pty Ltd v Dickinson [2015] NSWCATAP 94 Fitzpatrick Investments Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2015] NSWCATAD 103 Gallagher v Masters Installation Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCATAP 117 Gerrard v Slamar [2004] WASC 253 Mahon v Air New Zealand Ltd [1984] AC 808 McCrohan v Harith [2010] NSWCA 87 Megerditchian v Kumond Homes Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCATAP 120 Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11 Pacorp Holdings Pty Ltd v Waller [2017] NSWCATAP 167 Rodney v Stricke [2018] NSWCATAP 136 Sabouni v Develop Building and Developments Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 31 Troulis v Vanvoukakis (1998) NSWCA 237
Texts Cited:	None cited
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Muhammad Zia Ur Rehman (Applicant) Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd (First Respondent) Uber B.V. (Second Respondent)
Representation:	Solicitors: M Murray-Baptista, Dentons (Respondents) Applicant (self-represented)
File Number(s):	2023/00373879 (formerly GEN 23/43741)
Publication restriction:	Nil