Legal Research
Cases
Taxi Apps Pty Ltd v Uber Technologies Inc

Taxi Apps Pty Ltd v Uber Technologies Inc

Link copied

Case Copied 25 August 2025 69 min read

Contents

On this page

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

MAJOR TORTS LIST

S ECI 2020 01585

TAXI APPS PTY LTD (ACN 149 538 616)	Plaintiff
v
UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC & ORS (according to the attached Schedule)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Nichols J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	18 March 2024 – 21 May 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	25 August 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Taxi Apps Pty Ltd v Uber Technologies Inc & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 514

---

TORTS — Conspiracy — Combination — Combination within a corporate group — Combination not established — O’Brien v Dawson (1942) 66 CLR 18 — LMI Australasia Pty Ltd v Baulderstone Hornibrook Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 886 — Copperweld Corp v Independence Tube Corp 104 S.Ct. 2731 (1984) — Digicel (St Lucia) Ltd v Cable & Wireless Plc [2010] EWHC 774 (Ch).

TORTS — Conspiracy — Intention — Subjective intention — Direction of intention toward all members of class — Rules of attribution of knowledge to a company — Subjective knowledge established in respect of one of three state-based conspiracies — Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Colgate‑Palmolive Pty Ltd (No 4) (2017) 353 ALR 460 — Dresna Pty Ltd v Misu Nominees Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 1537 — Dresna Pty Ltd v Misu Nominees Pty Ltd (2003) ATPR — Lonrho Ltd v Shell Petroleum Co Ltd No 2 [1981] Com LR 6 — Uber Australia Pty Ltd v Andrianakis (2020) 61 VR 580 — McWilliam v Penthouse Publications Ltd [2001] NSWCA 237 — OBG v Allan [2008] 1 AC 1 — ED & F Man Capital Markets Limited v Come Harvest Holdings Ltd [2022] EWHC 229 — British American Tobacco Australia Services Limited v Slater & Gordon Ltd (No 3) [2009] VSC 619 — Australian Wool Innovation Ltd v Newkirk [2005] FCA 290 — Stanley v & Ors v Layne Christensen Co [2006] WASCA 56 — Hamilton & Whitehead (1988) 166 CLR 121 — Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass [1972] AC 153 — Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Kojic [2016] FCAFC 186 — McKernan v Fraser [1931] 46 CLR 343 — Williams v Hursey (1959) 103 CLR 30 — Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd v Securities Commission [1995] 2 AC 500 — Anderson v Canaccord Genuity Financial Ltd [2023] NSWCA 294.

TORTS — Conspiracy — Unlawful means — Nature of unlawful means — Whether remedy prescribed by statute is exclusive — Whether unlawful means must be independently actionable — Whether unlawful means must infringe a private legal right of the plaintiff — Whether acts caused loss or were merely the occasion of such loss — Williams v Hursey (1959) 103 CLR 30 — Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Total Network [2008] 1 AC 1174 — Maritime Union of Australia v Geraldton Port Authority (1999) 93 FCR 34 — Fatimi v Bryant (2004) 59 NSWLR 678 — Pancontinental Mining Ltd v Posgold Investments Pty Ltd (1994) 121 ALR 405 — Council of the…

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 Taxi Apps Pty Ltd v Uber Technologies Inc 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] VSC 514
Decision Date: 25 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Taxi Apps Pty Ltd sought to establish liability on Uber Technologies Inc for conspiracy and breach of confidence. The Victorian Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether Uber engaged in a combination with its drivers that amounted to a conspiracy to interfere with Taxi Apps’ business, and whether the drivers’ lists obtained by Uber were subject to a duty of confidence. The court had to consider whether a combination within a corporate group constituted a conspiracy, the nature of unlawful means in a conspiracy claim, and the elements of a breach of confidence claim.

The court found that Uber did not engage in a combination with its drivers that constituted a conspiracy. The court distinguished the case from previous authority that found a combination within a corporate group to be a conspiracy, holding that Uber's actions were not a combination within the meaning of the law. The court also held that the unlawful means alleged by Taxi Apps were not independently actionable and did not infringe a private legal right of the plaintiff. The court further held that the drivers’ lists did not possess the necessary quality of confidence and that the information was not misused by Uber. Finally, the court held that declaratory relief would not produce any foreseeable consequences for the parties.

Uber was not found liable for conspiracy or breach of confidence. The court refused to grant declaratory relief as it would not produce any foreseeable consequences for the parties.

Orders