In a volley of critical questions,the judges said the trial was"not a debating club",Uber should stay"in the real world"and"everybody knows what function Uber plays"as the company's lawyers argued it was not an employer but merely a service that connected customers,deliverers,and restaurants.
Uber had already won twice in the Fair Work Commission in a case brought against it by Amita Gupta,an Uber Eats worker backed by the Transport Workers Union who claimed she had been unfairly dismissed when her Uber Eats access was cut off because of late deliveries. Mrs Gupta then appealed to the Federal Court,where she became the first person to receive a settlement from the company on the question in Australia after a trial at that level.
When the case was heard in November,Uber's lawyers were met with a series of disbelieving questions as they argued Uber was a platform,not an employer.
"Everybody knows what function Uber plays. The restaurant's function is to prepare the food. Uber's function is to deliver the food;isn't that right?"Justice Mordecai Bromberg said.
Justice Richard White expressed similar sentiments while he tried to pin down whether Uber saw its riders as independent contractors.
"Well,we actually operate in the real world here,"Justice White said."Judgments are practical things,especially in this context. This is not a debating club."
The case settled before the court could deliver its judgment after the trial,where Uber was represented by a legal team from multinational law firm Ashurst.