Legal Research
Cases
Uber BV v Howarth

Uber BV v Howarth

Case [2017] NSWSC 54 3 April 2017

Tort of Intimidation

Injunction

Threatening Behavior

Equity’s Auxiliary Jurisdiction

Compensatory Damages

Tort Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Uber BV & Anor v Howarth [2017] NSWSC 54
Hearing dates: 6 & 7 February 2017
Date of orders: 03 April 2017
Decision date: 03 April 2017
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Slattery J
Decision:
Permanent injunction granted.

Catchwords: TORT – tort of intimidation – application for injunction in Equity’s auxiliary jurisdiction and under Supreme Court Act 1970, s 66 – plaintiffs facilitate drivers to provide transport services to members of the public – defendant performs citizen’s arrests upon, and engages in threatening behavior against the plaintiff’s employees and persons using the plaintiff’s technology to provide transport services - plaintiff seeks to restrain the defendant from intimidation, arresting, threatening or harassing the defendant’s employees or drivers who have entered contracts with the plaintiff to use the plaintiff’s technology platform to provide transportation services to third parties – whether plaintiff committed the tort of intimidation – whether existing interlocutory injunction should be made permanent.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Evidence Act 1995, s 128
Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002
Passenger Transport Act 1990
Passenger Transport Amendment (Taxis and Hire Cars) Regulation 2015
Passenger Transport Regulation 2007
Supreme Court Act 1970, s 66
Cases Cited: Abebe v Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510
Barber v Penley [1893] 2 Ch 447
Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v State of South Australia (1986) 161 CLR 148
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Boral Resources (Vic) Pty Ltd (2014) 45 VR 571
Corvisy v Corvisy [1982] 2 NSWLR 557
Day v Brownrigg (1878) 10 Ch D 294
Dowse v State of NSW [2012] NSWCA 337
Director of Public Proescutions (NSW) v AM (2006) 161 A Crim R 219 Director of Public Prosecutions v CAD [2003] NSWSC 196
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Carr [2002] 127 A Crim. R. 151
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Mathews – Hunter (2014) 242 A Crim R 319
Earl of Harrington v Corporation of Derby. [1905] 1 Ch 205
Foster v R (1993) 67 ALJR 550
Fleet v District Court of NSW [1999] NSWCA 363
Jenkins v Hope [1896] 1 Ch 278
Kruger v The Commonwealth of Australia (1997) 190 CLR 1
Leader v Moody (1875) LR 20 Eq 145
Llandudno Urban District Council v Woods [1899] 2 Ch 705
London and Blackwell Railway Company v Cross (1885) 31 Ch D 354
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611
Proctor v Bayley (1889) 42 Ch D 390
R v Clarence (1888) 22 QBD 23
R v Dungay (2001) 126 A Crim R 216
Shanahan v Fitzgerald [1982] 2 NSWLR 513
Sid Ross Agency Pty Limited v Actors and Announcers Equity Association of Australia [1971] 1 NSWLR 760
Waterside Workers Federation of Australia v J.W. Alexander Ltd (1918) 25 CLR 434
Williams v R (1986) 161 CLR 278
Texts Cited: RP Meagher, JD Heydon, MJ Leeming, Meagher, Gummow & Lehane’s Equity: Doctrines and Remedies (5th ed 2015, Butterworths LexisNexis), [21 – 040],…

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 Uber BV v Howarth

Details

AGLC: Uber BV v Howarth [2017] NSWSC 54
Case: [2017] NSWSC 54
Decision Date: 03 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Uber BV, an entity facilitating drivers to provide transport services, brought an action against Howarth, who performed citizen’s arrests on and engaged in threatening behaviour against Uber’s employees and users of its technology. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiffs sought to restrain the defendant from intimidation, arresting, threatening or harassing the employees or drivers who have entered contracts with the plaintiffs to use the plaintiffs’ technology platform to provide transportation services to third parties. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiffs had committed the tort of intimidation and whether the existing interlocutory injunction should be made permanent.

The court considered the evidence presented and found that the defendant’s actions constituted the tort of intimidation. The court was satisfied that Howarth's conduct was intentional, coercive, and unlawful, and that it had caused the plaintiffs’ employees and drivers to feel threatened and intimidated. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a strong case on the merits and that the balance of convenience favoured making the interlocutory injunction permanent. The court also considered the public interest in regulating the provision of transport services and the importance of protecting individuals from intimidation and harassment.

Accordingly, the court made the interlocutory injunction permanent, restraining Howarth from engaging in the specified conduct towards the plaintiffs' employees and drivers. The court noted that the injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable harm to the plaintiffs and to maintain public order and safety. The court also emphasised the importance of protecting individuals' rights to engage in lawful economic activity without fear of intimidation or harassment. The court’s decision provides guidance on the scope and application of the tort of intimidation in the context of technology-enabled transport services.

The final orders included a declaration that Howarth’s conduct constituted the tort of intimidation, an injunction restraining Howarth from engaging in the specified conduct towards the plaintiffs' employees and drivers, and an order for Howarth to pay the plaintiffs’ costs of the application. The court’s decision provides a clear statement of the law on the tort of intimidation and the circumstances in which an injunction may be granted to prevent its commission.

Orders