Roger Partridge
The Supreme Court’s Uber judgment (Rasier Operations BV v E Tū Inc [2025] NZSC 162) has delivered clarity of a sort. The court dismissed Uber’s appeal, upholding the finding that drivers are employees when logged into the Uber app.
The decision was unanimous on the outcome but divided on reasoning.
The majority judgment of Winkelmann CJ, Williams and Miller JJ and the separate judgment by Glazebrook and Ellen France JJ disagreed on fundamental questions, including whether the Court of Appeal had erred on the role of subjective intention in its analysis.
Yet remarkably, neither judgment engaged with the duty of loyalty.
Unlock this article and all PREMIUM content by subscribing to LawNews
Already a subscriber?
I’m not an employment lawyer, but I suspect that as a small market Uber will simply leave.
I’ve spoken to so many drivers who use Uber as a secondary source of income and are happy with the current arrangements that existed before this decision.
Multi-apping is a feature of the “GIG” economy. GIG employers need to satisfy their customers’ immediate demands, or lose business. It is immaterial to them who actually provides the service. For Uber, for a job that cannot be filled in a timely way, the ability of a Didi driver to cover it is actually a bonus, and vice versa. The last thing anybody needs is for Parliament to wade into the weeds!
Excellent article. My Uber driver said: He did not agree to being an employee, he doesn’t want to be an Uber employee. Has he no choice? He averages $30 per hour.