Simranpreet Singh v Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd - [2025] FWC 2497

[2025] FWC 2497

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.536LU - Application for an unfair deactivation remedy

Simranpreet Singh
v

Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd

(UDE2025/130)

COMMISSIONER TRAN

MELBOURNE, 26 AUGUST 2025

Application for an unfair deactivation remedy – Application made out of time under s 536LU(3) of the Act – Date deactivation took effect – Extension not granted – Application dismissed

Mr Simranpreet Singh was a driver with Uber. On 1 May 2025, Mr Singh could not access his account. He received a notification that said that his account was restricted but that he could appeal that decision by using a link. He used the link, and he also called ‘Uber,’ to try to get his account reactivated. On 29 May 2025, Mr Singh received an email that said his account had been reviewed and it would remain deactivated. That email also said the decision was final.

On 17 June 2025, Mr Singh applied to the Fair Work Commission for an unfair deactivation remedy under s 536LU of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

The Act says that applications for unfair deactivation remedies must be made within 21 days after the deactivation took effect. If an application is not made within 21 days, then the Commission may extend time for the making of the application if the Commission is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances.

In this decision, I conclude that Mr Singh’s deactivation took effect on 1 May 2025. This means that his application on 17 June 2025 was 26 days after the end of the required time period. I do not consider that there are exceptional circumstances to allow Mr Singh a further period of time to file his application. I therefore dismiss his application. My reasons follow.

Respondent’s name

In his application, Mr Singh named Uber Australia Pty Ltd as the digital labour platform operator. Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd responded to the application, asserting that it was the proper name of the party that operated the digital labour platform under which Mr Singh performed work, being the Uber Driver Platform.

At the determinative conference, Mr Singh did not agree that Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd is the proper respondent or that he had performed work for Rasier Pacific. Mr Singh did not agree to change the name of the respondent in his application. It is understandable why he did not think Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd was the Respondent. All Mr Singh’s communications with the respondent are marked with Uber, or from “Uber Support,” or an email address with Uber, but not ‘Rasier Pacific’ in it.

I requested that the respondent provide me with a copy of the Services Agreement and an invoice of payment to Mr Singh. Having reviewed those documents, I am of the view that the name of the proper respondent which is the operator of the digital labour platform that entered the services contract under which Mr Singh performed work is Rasier Pacific. Under s 586(a)of the Act, I order that the name…

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 Simranpreet Singh 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: [2025] FWC 2497
Decision Date: 26 AUGUST 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Simranpreet Singh, a former driver for Uber, applied to the Fair Work Commission for an unfair deactivation remedy under section 536LU of the Fair Work Act 2009. The respondent, initially named as Uber Australia Pty Ltd, was later determined to be Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd, the operator of the Uber Driver Platform. Singh’s application was filed on 17 June 2025, 26 days after his account deactivation took effect on 1 May 2025. The primary legal issue before the Commissioner was whether the application, filed out of time, could be extended under section 536LU(3) of the Act due to exceptional circumstances.

The Commissioner found that Singh’s account deactivation occurred on 1 May 2025, when his access to the platform was modified, suspended, or terminated, and he could no longer perform work. The application was therefore made beyond the 21-day statutory period. The Commissioner considered various factors to determine if exceptional circumstances existed for extending the time limit. Singh argued that he was participating in the respondent's internal review process, was shocked and stressed by the deactivation, and was unaware of the Commission’s process. The Commissioner acknowledged Singh's participation in the internal review as an acceptable reason for part of the delay but did not find the shock and stress or unfamiliarity with the Commission’s jurisdiction to be acceptable reasons for the delay. The Commissioner concluded that while Singh actively contested the deactivation, the majority of the delay was not justified by exceptional circumstances. Other factors, such as the merits and fairness, did not weigh in favour of extending the time. The Commissioner ultimately dismissed the application for an unfair deactivation remedy as the application was not made within the requisite time and no exceptional circumstances were present.

In light of the above, the Commissioner ordered that Simranpreet Singh's application for an unfair deactivation remedy be dismissed.

Orders