The Law Library of Victoria Home Menu

Salem v Uber Technologies Inc & Ors [2020] VSC 885

CIVIL PROCEDURE
Supreme Court of Victoria
Division: 
Common Law Division
Judge(s): 
Macaulay J
Parties: 

Salem, Jamal in her capacity as executor for the estate of Salem, Anwar v Uber Technologies Incorporated; Uber Technologies Incorporated (4849283); Uber International Holding B.V. (RSIN 851 929 357); Uber B.V. (RSIN 852 071 589; Uber Australia P/L (ACN 160 299 865); Rasier Operations B.V. (RSIN 853 682 318); Uber Pacific Holdings B.V. (RSIN 855 779 330) & Uber Pacific Holdings /L (ACN 609 590 463)

Judgment Date: 
23 December 2020
Catchwords: 

CIVIL PROCEDURE - Group proceeding pursuant to Part 4A Supreme Court Act 1986 - Where pleaded claim for damages consequent upon alleged conspiracy to injure by unlawful means - Where group members' title to claim is acquired or derived from another person - Application to strike out pleadings for failure to disclose a cause of action - Whether cause of action as pleaded on behalf of group members is manifestly hopeless - Whether claims of assignees of a cause of action are manifestly hopeless without pleading of material facts showing assignee had a pre-existing genuine commercial interest in the enforcement of the claim - Whether claims of beneficiaries who purport to enforce the claim of the trust are manifestly hopeless without pleading of material facts showing special or exceptional circumstances - Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, r 23.02(a) - Trendtex Trading Corporation v Credit Suisse [1982] AC 679; Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Haxton (2012) 246 CLR 498; EWC Payments Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2014] VSC 207; WorkCover Queensland v Amaca Pty Ltd [2012] QCA 240; Alexander v Perpetual Trustees WA Limited (2003) 216 CLR 109; Nolan v Nolan [2003] VSC 121; Deutch v Deutch [2012] VSC 227.

CIVIL PROCEDURE - Group proceeding pursuant to Part 4A Supreme Court Act 1986 - Extent to which the material facts supporting individual group members' claims must be pleaded - Whether facts supporting each individual group member's standing to sue or title to a claim must be specifically pleaded ahead of the trial of common questions - Whether inadequate identification of group members because of failure to plead material facts supporting individual group members' standing to sue or title to a claim - Supreme Court Act 1986 s 33H(2) - Philip Morris (Australia) Ltd v Nixon (2000) 170 ALR 487; Dillon v RBS Group (Australia) Pty Ltd (2017) 252 FCR 150; Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd v Victoria (2002) 211 CLR 1; National Australia Bank Limited v Pathway Investments Pty Ltd [2012] VSCA 168; Abbott v Zoetis Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) (2019) 369 ALR 512.

CIVIL PROCEDURE - Group proceeding pursuant to Part 4A Supreme Court Act 1986 - Where group members' title to claim is acquired or derived from another person - Where pleaded claim brought on behalf of persons who have had vested in, assigned, devolved or transferred to them the claim of a person who was victim of alleged tort - Application to strike out pleadings because it may embarrass the fair trial of the proceeding - Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, r 23.02(b) - Words and phrases 'vested in', 'devolved'.

Citation: