Introduction The questions on appeal Overview of this judgment An overview of the Rides platform The contracts and the parties to them Terms and conditions of the Services Agreement and User Terms
Provisions purporting to define relationships Drivers’ obligations with respect to work Fares, service fees and other payments Drivers’ capacity to refuse or cancel rides Control of driver–rider communication Terms on which riders are carried Ratings Discipline
The operation of the platform in practice
Onboarding Drivers’ right to compete with Uber The driver rating system
Drivers’ capacity to refuse or cancel rides, and the Uber Pro rewards programme
Disciplinary practices
All digital platforms are not the same The Employment Relations Act 2000
Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd Did the Court of Appeal misinterpret Bryson?
What weight should be given to contractual statements about the parties’ relationship?
Inequality of bargaining power and s 6
Employee status in this case Does Uber engage drivers to work for hire or reward?
Does Uber supply transport services to passengers?
Does Uber engage drivers to deliver the transport services it supplies to users?
Does Uber engage drivers under contracts of service?
Freedom to work for others The right to subcontract performance Basis of payment for work done Provision of tools and equipment Opportunity for profit and risk of loss Goodwill Work premises, uniforms and insignia Control over performance Disciplinary processes Control, integration and the fundamental test: conclusions
On behalf of four Uber drivers the respondent unions sought a declaration that the drivers are Uber’s employees; in the language of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA), Uber hired them to do work for hire or reward under contracts of service.[1] The drivers succeeded in the Employment Court and Court of Appeal.[2]
[1]Employment Relations Act 2000 [ERA], s 6.…
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 Rasier Operations BV v E Tū Incorporated
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Rasier Operations BV v E Tū Incorporated [2025] NZSC 162
Case
[2025] NZSC 162
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Uber appealed a decision by the Court of Appeal that held that Uber drivers were employees of Uber. The Court of Appeal had reversed a decision of the Employment Court that had held the drivers were independent contractors. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal had misapplied the common law tests in deciding that the drivers were employees. The Supreme Court found that the drivers were independent contractors and dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court also held that the drivers must pay the respondents' costs of $50,000 plus usual disbursements.