Singh v Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd

Case [2024] NSWCATCD 4

Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Singh v Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCATCD 4
Hearing dates: 11 December 2023
Date of orders: 03 June 2024
Decision date: 03 June 2024
Jurisdiction:Consumer and Commercial Division
Before: G Sarginson, Senior Member
Decision:

The Respondents, Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd and Uber B.V. are to pay the applicant Ranjit Singh the total amount of $10,000 by 28 days from the date of this decision.

Catchwords:

CONSUMER LAW---Consumer claim---Part 6A Fair Trading Act 1987(NSW)---Uber driver---Contract---Termination for breach---Whether conduct of driver justified termination---Damages---Loss of income

Legislation Cited:

Australian Consumer Law 2010 (NSW)

Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Ahmad v Portier Pacific Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCATCD, unreported, 21 September 2023

Ali v Raisier Pacific VOF, [2023] NSWCATCD unreported, dated 3 August 2023

Attorney General NSW v Gatsby (2018) 99 NSWLR 1; [2018] NSWCA 245

Beechwood Homes (NSW) Pty Ltd v Hassos [2023] NSWCATAP 184

BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1977) 180 CLR 266

Burns v Corbett (2018) 265 CLR 304; [2018] HCA 15

Cherry v Steele-Park [2017] NSWCA 295

Citta Hobart Pty Ltd v Cawthorn (2022) 276 CLR 216; [2022] HCA 16

DB Homes Australia Pty Ltd v Kes [2019] NSWCATAP 221

Forklift Engineering Australia Pty Ltd v Powerlift (Nissan) Pty Ltd [2000] VSC 443

Koompahatoo Local Aboriginal Land Council v Sanpine Pty Limited [2007] HCA 61; (2007) 233 CLR 115

Lam v Steve Jarvin Motors Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCATAP 186

Productivity Partners Pty Ltd (trading as Captain Cook College) v ACCC [2023] FCAFC 54

Rehman v Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCATCD 3

Sabouni v Revelop Building and Developments Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 31

Tramways Advertising Pty Ltd v Luna Park (NSW) Pty Ltd (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 632

Volkswagen Group Australia Pty Ltd v Saad [2022] NSWCATAP 133

Texts Cited:

None cited

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Ranjit Singh (Applicant)
Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd (First Respondent)
Uber B.V. (Second Respondent)
Representation:

R Singh, self-represented (Applicant)
B Allen, solicitor (Respondents)

Solicitors:
Dentons (Respondents)
File Number(s): 2023/00375315 (Previously GEN 23/42416)
Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. This is a claim for damages of $10,000 by a former Uber driver on the basis that he was wrongfully terminated from the Uber platform.

  2. The applicant is not seeking he be reinstated to the Uber platform. The only remedy sought is damages.

  3. The applicant was a full time driver for Uber for a period of approximately 3 years and 4 months prior to being terminated from access to the Uber app.

  4. The respondents, in their outline of written submissions contained in the body of the affidavit of an in-house Solicitor Ms McCormick dated 6 December 2023, refer to both Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd and Uber B.V. as being parties to the Services Agreement with the applicant.

  5. In this decision, any reference to “Uber” is a reference to the respondents.

  6. The applicant commenced proceedings in the Tribunal on 18 September 2023.

The Application

  1. The application states…

Continue reading Singh v Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Singh v Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCATCD 4
Case
[2024] NSWCATCD 4
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ranjit Singh brought proceedings against Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd, trading as Uber, in the Consumer, Arbitration and Food Tribunal in New South Wales. Singh, a former Uber driver, sought damages for wrongful termination of his contract. Singh alleged that Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd terminated his access to the Uber platform without justification, causing him to lose income. Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd and Uber B.V. denied Singh's claims, arguing that Singh breached the terms of his contract with them and that his termination was justified.

The court had to decide whether Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd and Uber B.V. were liable for damages under Part 6A of the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) due to Singh's wrongful termination and whether the termination was justified. The court also had to determine whether Singh was entitled to damages and, if so, how much.

The court found that Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd and Uber B.V. were liable for damages under the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) because they terminated Singh's contract without justification. The court found that Singh's termination was not justified as Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd and Uber B.V. failed to prove that Singh breached the terms of his contract. The court also found that Singh was entitled to damages for loss of income due to the wrongful termination of his contract. The court awarded Singh $10,000 in damages. Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd and Uber B.V. were ordered to pay Singh the total amount of $10,000 by 28 days from the date of the decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Respondents, Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd and Uber B.V. are to pay the applicant Ranjit Singh the total amount of $10,000 by 28 days from the date of this decision.

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.