Uber BV & Anor v Howarth [2017] NSWSC 54

Uber BV & Anor v Howarth [2017] NSWSC 54

The court found Mr Howarth's conduct in arresting, intimidating, threatening, and harassing Uber drivers and staff constituted the tort of intimidation. His acts of citizen's arrest were unlawful because they were unnecessary and not for the sole purpose of initiating criminal proceedings, instead motivated to injure Uber's interests. The elements of the tort of intimidation were fully made out, entitling Uber to permanent injunctive relief restraining such conduct.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Permanent Injunction Application (equity's Auxiliary Jurisdiction and Under Supreme Court Act 1970, S 66) / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Permanent injunction granted.
Legal Topics
['intimidation' 'injunctions' "citizen's Arrest" 'false Imprisonment' 'harassment' 'civil Liability for Public Order Offences']
['tort' 'equity' 'civil Procedure'] ['intimidation' 'injunctions' "citizen's Arrest" 'false Imprisonment' 'harassment' 'civil Liability for Public Order Offences']

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

Permanent Injunction Application (equity's Auxiliary Jurisdiction and Under Supreme Court Act 1970, S 66) / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendant's conduct constituted the tort of intimidation against Uber and its drivers" 'Whether the conditions for permanent injunctive relief restraining intimidation, harassment, and unlawful arrest of Uber-affiliated individuals are satisfied' "Whether the defendant's acts were justified as lawful citizen's arrests under Australian law"]

Ratio Decidendi

The court found Mr Howarth's conduct in arresting, intimidating, threatening, and harassing Uber drivers and staff constituted the tort of intimidation. His acts of citizen's arrest were unlawful because they were unnecessary and not for the sole purpose of initiating criminal proceedings, instead motivated to injure Uber's interests. The elements of the tort of intimidation were fully made out, entitling Uber to permanent injunctive relief restraining such conduct.

Court Disposition

Permanent injunction granted.

Orders

  • ['Mr Howarth (and his servants/agents) permanently restrained from intimidating or attempting to intimidate the plaintiffs or their officers, employees or agents; from arresting or attempting/threatening to arrest officers, employees, agents or users of the Uber App except in cases of lawful arrest to prevent/hinder...