Oze-Igiehon v Uber Technology Inc [2017] FCA 1024

Oze-Igiehon v Uber Technology Inc [2017] FCA 1024

The applicant lacked standing to pursue the proposed joinder relief against the Commissioner of Taxation and the Fair Work Ombudsman, and lacked standing to bring superannuation claims against Uber Australia because he was not an employee of Uber Australia and, in any event, only the Commissioner, a Second Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner has standing to recover superannuation guarantee charge amounts under the statutory scheme. The overseas service issue concerning the first to third respondents was adjourned rather than resolved by amending addresses for service.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Employment and Industrial Relations Proceeding Concerning Superannuation Guarantee Claims / Determination of Interlocutory Applications by the Applicant and by the Fourth Respondent
Outcome
The applicant's interlocutory application was adjourned as to service of the first to third respondents but otherwise dismissed with no order as to costs; the proceedings against Uber Australia Pty Ltd were dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['superannuation Guarantee Charge' 'standing to Claim Superannuation Guarantee Payments' 'joinder of Commissioner of Taxation and Fair Work Ombudsman' 'service on Overseas Respondents' 'dismissal of Proceedings Against Fourth Respondent']
['superannuation' 'practice and Procedure' 'employment and Industrial Relations'] ['superannuation Guarantee Charge' 'standing to Claim Superannuation Guarantee Payments' 'joinder of Commissioner of Taxation and Fair Work Ombudsman' 'service on Overseas Respondents' 'dismissal of Proceedings Against Fourth Respondent']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Employment and Industrial Relations Proceeding Concerning Superannuation Guarantee Claims / Determination of Interlocutory Applications by the Applicant and by the Fourth Respondent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant had standing to seek relief against the Commissioner of Taxation or the Fair Work Ombudsman in relation to superannuation guarantee matters.' 'Whether leave should be granted to amend the addresses for service of the first, second and third respondents to overseas addresses.' 'Whether the proceedings against Uber Australia Pty Ltd should be dismissed because the applicant lacked standing to bring superannuation claims under the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth) and Superannuation Guarantee Charge Act 1992 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant lacked standing to pursue the proposed joinder relief against the Commissioner of Taxation and the Fair Work Ombudsman, and lacked standing to bring superannuation claims against Uber Australia because he was not an employee of Uber Australia and, in any event, only the Commissioner, a Second Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner has standing to recover superannuation guarantee charge amounts under the statutory scheme. The overseas service issue concerning the first to third respondents was adjourned rather than resolved by amending addresses for service.

Court Disposition

The applicant's interlocutory application was adjourned as to service of the first to third respondents but otherwise dismissed with no order as to costs; the proceedings against Uber Australia Pty Ltd were dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's interlocutory application dated 19 July 2017 as to service of the first to third respondents be adjourned to 12 September 2017 at 9.30am but otherwise be dismissed with no order as to costs." 'The proceedings as against the fourth respondent be dismissed.' 'The applicant pay the costs of the fourth...