JAMAL SALEM in her capacity as executor for the estate of ANWAR SALEM	Plaintiff
v
UBER TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED & ORS (in accordance with the schedule)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	MACAULAY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	4 September 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 December 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Salem v Uber Technologies Inc & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 885

---

CIVIL PROCEDURE — Group proceeding pursuant to Part 4A Supreme Court Act 1986 —Where pleaded claim for damages consequent upon alleged conspiracy to injure by unlawful means — Where group members’ title to claim is acquired or derived from another person — Application to strike out pleadings for failure to disclose a cause of action — Whether cause of action as pleaded on behalf of group members is manifestly hopeless — Whether claims of assignees of a cause of action are manifestly hopeless without pleading of material facts showing assignee had a pre-existing genuine commercial interest in the enforcement of the claim — Whether claims of beneficiaries who purport to enforce the claim of the trust are manifestly hopeless without pleading of material facts showing special or exceptional circumstances — Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, r 23.02(a) — Trendtex Trading Corporation v Credit Suisse [1982] AC 679; Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Haxton (2012) 246 CLR 498; EWC Payments Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2014] VSC 207; WorkCover Queensland v Amaca Pty Ltd [2012] QCA 240; Alexander v Perpetual Trustees WA Limited (2003) 216 CLR 109; Nolan v Nolan [2003] VSC 121; Deutch v Deutch [2012] VSC 227.

CIVIL PROCEDURE — Group proceeding pursuant to Part 4A Supreme Court Act 1986—Extent to which the material facts supporting individual group members’ claims must be pleaded — Whether facts supporting each individual group member’s standing to sue or title to a claim must be specifically pleaded ahead of the trial of common questions — Whether inadequate identification of group members because of failure to plead material facts supporting individual group members’ standing to sue or title to a claim — Supreme Court Act 1986 s 33H(2) — Philip Morris (Australia) Ltd v Nixon (2000) 170 ALR 487; Dillon v RBS Group (Australia) Pty Ltd (2017) 252 FCR 150; Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd v Victoria (2002) 211 CLR 1; National Australia Bank Limited v Pathway Investments Pty Ltd [2012] VSCA 168; Abbott v Zoetis Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) (2019) 369 ALR 512.

CIVIL PROCEDURE — Group proceeding pursuant to Part 4A Supreme Court Act 1986 —Where group members’ title to claim is acquired or derived from another person — Where pleaded claim brought on behalf of persons who have had vested in, assigned, devolved or transferred to them the claim of a person who was victim of alleged tort — Application to…

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 Salem v Uber Technologies Inc

Details

AGLC: Salem v Uber Technologies Inc [2020] VSC 885
Case: [2020] VSC 885
Decision Date: 23 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Salem v Uber Technologies Inc, the plaintiff, Salem, initiated a group proceeding under Part 4A of the Supreme Court Act 1986 on behalf of several group members, alleging damages for conspiracy to injure by unlawful means against Uber Technologies Inc. The court was required to determine whether the claims brought on behalf of the group members were valid and if the pleadings sufficiently disclosed a cause of action.

The legal issues central to this case involved whether the claims of the group members, whose title to claim was acquired or derived from another person, were manifestly hopeless. This included whether the assignees of a cause of action were valid without the pleading of material facts showing a pre-existing genuine commercial interest in the enforcement of the claim, and whether the claims of beneficiaries who purport to enforce the claim of the trust were valid without the pleading of material facts showing special or exceptional circumstances. The court also examined whether the material facts supporting each individual group member's standing to sue or title to a claim needed to be specifically pleaded ahead of the trial of common questions.

The court held that the claims of the assignees were manifestly hopeless without the pleading of material facts showing a genuine commercial interest in the enforcement of the claim, and that the claims of the beneficiaries were similarly invalid without special or exceptional circumstances. The pleadings were deemed inadequate because they failed to identify the group members adequately, specifically due to the absence of material facts supporting the individual group members' standing to sue or title to a claim. Consequently, the court ruled that the claims should be struck out, as they might embarrass the fair trial of the proceeding. This decision was based on established precedents that emphasise the necessity of pleading material facts to support individual group members’ claims.

The court's final order was to strike out the pleadings of the group members, finding that the claims as pleaded were manifestly hopeless and could not proceed without further evidence to substantiate the group members’ individual rights to claim.

Orders