Uber BV v Howarth

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.