Andrianakis v Uber Technologies Inc and Others

1. There are 273 valid UGM Applications supported by evidence where the UGM mentions English being a second or subsequent language or other language difficulties, or otherwise raises a special vulnerability such as age, legal guardianship, or living in a remote area. I have reviewed each one of these applications individually.
2. The Contradictor submits that the nature of 'special vulnerabilities', combined with the Court's protective jurisdiction under Part 4A of the Act,[78] mean that valid UGM Applications in this category are more likely to experience unfair prejudice if the UGM is excluded. The Contradictor submits that while these applications should be assessed on their merits, the nature of the special vulnerability identified may warrant some leeway in the assessment of whether the evidence is sufficiently probative.
3. I agree with this submission. Some leeway was given in the assessment of the evidence, but there still needed to be sufficient particularity and linking with the lack of awareness of the class action or the Class Closure Deadline for the application to be capable of establishing unfair prejudice. The majority of applications in Category 8 did not do so.
4. Below, I set out examples of applications in Category 8:

(a) Almost all of the Gordon Legal clients fell into Category 8, because they had migrated to Australia from non-English speaking countries, but there was a significant range of proficiency in English that was indicated by those UGMs. Most deposed to having a reasonable, good, or strong understanding of English. This was not enough to establish unfair prejudice. These, and a number of other UGM Applicants who stated that they spoke English as a second language but did not provide any specificity as to their level of understanding, comprised most of the applications in Category 8.

(b) GF is a taxi driver and sometime licence owner in New South Wales.[79] He is 78 years old and does not use emails. His wife died from COVID-19 in March 2022 and she had been the one to keep track of all their work, finances, taxes, insurances, registrations and his health appointments. In January 2023, he was involved in a near fatal car accident while driving a taxi, as a result of which he endured three surgeries and several months in hospital and rehabilitation until early October 2023. This UGM Application contains sufficient particularity of GF's medical issues and special vulnerabilities, with a clear link to the relevant timeframe, so as to establish unfair prejudice. GF's application was accepted.

(c) VM is a taxi license holder in Victoria.[80] At the time the Andrianakis proceeding was commenced, he was approximately 80 years old. He is not literate in English and has never used a computer in his life. On the day the proceeding was commenced, his son attempted to register VM's application with Maurice Blackburn by phone, and received an email with a link to the registration portal, which is annexed to VM's affidavit. Unfortunately, online registration was not then completed by his son, but VM assumed that his claim had been registered. The Contradictor submits that while there is no evidence from his son to explain why he did not take any further step to register his father's claim, it is evident that VM acted very quickly in seeking to register his claim, and has been forthcoming that he later learned the registration process was not completed. The Contradictor further submits that, in circumstances where VM is elderly, not literate in English, and not computer literate at all, his reliance on his son to protect his interests was plainly reasonable. The Contradictor submits that these circumstances combined would constitute a sufficient basis for the Court to conclude that VM would suffer unfair prejudice if excluded from the settlement. I accept this submission. VM's application illustrates the type of particularity and causation for a number of the categories which are capable of establishing unfair prejudice. His explanation for the mistaken belief in registration is substantiated and credible, and his special vulnerabilities also meet that criteria. VM's application was granted.

(d) HB is a taxi driver in Victoria. He states that 'due to family circumstances I missed out on getting myself registered as member of class action before 2nd October 2023 due to my youngest daughter's ongoing medical issues'. Nothing more is said about the 'family circumstances' or his daughter's 'ongoing medical issues'. Nothing is said to explain how these prevented him from registering. This was not sufficient to establish unfair prejudice and his application was refused.

1. Of the 273 valid UGM Applications in Category 8, 31 were granted.

1. The two UGM Applications falling within Category 9 alone have been dismissed without individual review, for the reasons set out at paragraph 100 above.

1. There are 41 valid UGM Applications supported by evidence which fall into Category 10. I have reviewed each of these applications individually.
2. The Contradictor drew a distinction between the merits of an application which is categorised as 'Travel' but may consist of a bare statement that the UGM was overseas, without identifying when, and an application that states that the UGM was overseas between 21 July and 1 October 2023 and therefore did not receive, or was not able to learn of, the Opt Out and Closure Notice. In respect of the latter, the Contradictor submits that this would be sufficient to establish unfair prejudice.
3. I agree with this submission. A bare statement of being overseas, without identifying the period, or where the period did not coincide with the commencement of the proceeding or the July 2023 to October 2023 period, was insufficient to establish unfair prejudice. In contrast, UGMs who provided specific detail that during that registration period they were travelling or living overseas or in an Australian state other than Victoria, Western Australia, Queensland or New South Wales (because these four states were the only states in which the Opt Out and Closure Notice was advertised) were able to establish unfair prejudice.
4. By way of example:

(a) AQ and SR are former taxi drivers who moved to Pakistan in 2022 and 2020 respectively and both of their affidavits were witnessed in Pakistan.[81]

(b) NI is a former taxi driver in Victoria who moved to Tasmania at the end of 2021, still lives there, and affirmed his affidavit there.[82]

(c) PT relocated to Hong Kong in 2017, visits Australia infrequently, and only found out about the class action and the proposed settlement in about June 2024 from a TV news report in Hong Kong. [83] His affidavit was witnessed in Hong Kong.

1. The Contradictor made submissions about SR and NI, stating that the Opt Out and Closure Notice was not disseminated overseas, or in Tasmania, and while some national industry associations were asked to distribute the Opt Out and Closure Notice to their mailing lists, it is not known if those mailing lists included persons who no longer worked in the industry and/or whose physical address had changed. The Contradictor submits that depending on the Court's approach to evidence of this nature that is not supported by records, this may be sufficient to demonstrate unfair prejudice if persons in the position of SR and NI are not permitted to participate in the settlement.
2. I agree with this submission, and for the reasons already stated, have not required substantiating documents such as copies of travel records to be exhibited to the affidavits. Each of the applications referred to in paragraph 162 demonstrated unfair prejudice and all were granted.
3. Of the 41 valid UGM Applications in Category 10, 24 were granted.

F.9.9 Categories 11 to 14 - Mistaken belief of registration

1. There are 36 valid UGM Applications which are supported by evidence that fall into one or more of Categories 11 to 14. I have reviewed all of the applications in these Categories.
2. UGM Applications in Category 11 are recorded as indicating a mistaken belief that the applicant had previously registered to participate in the proceedings. UGM Applications in Category 12 indicate that the UGM registered a different entity with Maurice Blackburn but failed to register all their relevant entities. UGM Applications in Category 13 registered their interest in other legal proceedings but not these ones. Category 14 comprises UGM Applications giving other reasons for their mistaken belief as to registration.
3. In respect of Category 11, the Contradictor submits that where the evidence demonstrates that the UGM sought to register their interest in this proceeding and provides a persuasive and credible reason for the mistaken belief, that should be sufficient to demonstrate unfair prejudice.
4. However, where the applicant gives evidence that they completed what they thought was a registration process but there is no evidence that that process was connected to this proceeding (ie, it does not refer to Maurice Blackburn, or the Supreme Court, or it occurred at a time unconnected with these proceedings), then the Contradictor submits that the reasons are not sufficiently persuasive to constitute unfair prejudice. The Contradictor submits that it is not unreasonable for the Court to expect that a group member who is prepared to sign up to something, should have regard to what they are signing. The Contradictor submits that it would not be fair to RGMs to permit the inclusion of UGMs who, for example, 'in or about 2018, signed registration paperwork at Melbourne Airport to join the class action against Uber Technologies',[84] when there is no evidence that Maurice Blackburn conducted such a registration process at that time and the UGMs are not recorded in Maurice Blackburn's records of RGMs.
5. In respect of Category 12, the Contradictor submits that, subject to their submission about evidence being sufficiently persuasive to explain the mistake (ie, specific as to time, place and the particular circumstances of the UGM), the nature of the mistake for this Category is sufficient to demonstrate unfair prejudice. The Contradictor submits that the fact that such UGMs registered in some capacity is probative evidence of their intention to register all of their claims.
6. The Contradictor submits that UGM Applications in Category 13, without more (such as a special vulnerability), will not be sufficient to demonstrate unfair prejudice.
7. The Contradictor submits that UGM Applications in Category 14 will each turn on their own facts, with the assessment of the merits having regard to the above submissions.
8. I agree with these submissions and have followed that approach.
9. By way of example:

(a) RN's application fell into Category 11 but contained insufficient particularity.[85] RN states that she was 'out of the country when I thought I had registered to be a group member of the class action,' but does not state when she was out of Australia, when she thought she had registered, and the steps she took that led her to think that she was registered. The Contradictor submits that is not sufficient evidence to establish unfair prejudice. I agree.

(b) CK and HK are a married couple in their seventies who held a taxi licence in Victoria and who fall within Category 14.[86] CK was also a taxi driver until about 2011. Both are Greek migrants with limited English, limited ability and capacity to use technology such as the internet and electronic communications, and rely on their adult children for their help and assistance. CK deposes that he was aware of this proceeding generally through the news and that he vaguely recalls meeting with other drivers and licence holders before proceedings were commenced and paying a fee to be involved in an action, but he cannot recall whether it pertained to this proceeding. CK also deposes that he received a text message last year associated with this proceeding and asking one of his children or their partners to reply and confirm his participation. CK and HK therefore assumed they were registered as group members. The combination of all of CK's and HK's circumstances were sufficient to demonstrate unfair prejudice.

1. Of the 36 valid UGM Applications in Categories 11 to 14, 21 were granted.

1. There are 19 valid UGM Applications supported by evidence which have been placed in Category 15. I have reviewed each of these applications individually. Of the 19 applications in this Category:

(a) Two applications raise what the Contradictor describes as unique issues arising from the administration of deceased estates. Upon review, I was satisfied that these two applications established unfair prejudice. I should note here that not all applications involving deceased estates were granted: only ones which raised matters constituting a cogent explanation for failing to register were granted.

(b) The other 17 applications state that the UGM did not register due to concerns about registration information being used for fraudulent purposes. For example, MI states as follows:[87]

In regards to originally not joining the class action, the reason I didn't join the class action was that there were lots of rumours going around among taxi industry that people were collecting our information to use it for fraudulent purpose.

Now I have found out that class action is indeed genuine and true and at that time, the information collected was to hold uber accountable. Hence, I would like to put my name as a participant in the class action.

1. I note that all 17 applications referred to in sub-paragraph (b) were in virtually the same form. The Contradictor submits that this is not a sufficient basis to demonstrate unfair prejudice, particularly where those concerns appear to have fallen away upon the announcement of the proposed settlement. The Contradictor also submits that it was open to any UGM who genuinely held these concerns at the time to make their own inquiries, either directly to Maurice Blackburn, or by seeking legal advice. I agree with this submission. I also consider that the formulaic nature of these applications detracts from their credibility, when what is being relied upon is a particular idiosyncratic belief.
2. Of the 19 applications in Category 15, two were granted (being the ones referred to in sub-paragraph 176(a) above).

1. Of the 5742 applications which were categorised by Maurice Blackburn as being valid UGM Applications supported by evidence, I reviewed 726 individually based on their categorisation, I reviewed another 677 individually randomly selected from the MB Re-Review applications, and I dealt with the remainder by category (without individual review) as described above.[88]
2. I confirm that the 656 UGM Applications identified in the Fourth UGM Affidavit as requiring individual review have been included in the applications individually reviewed by me as described above.
3. Of the total number of 1,403 UGM Applications reviewed individually by me, 140 were granted. Accordingly, those persons should be treated as RGMs for the purposes of administering the SDS.
4. Many of the UGMs referred to the difficult circumstances they had faced after Uber entered the market and the adverse effects that they say UberX, and the changed regulations, had on them, their families and their livelihoods. Many had heart‑breaking stories to tell. All of the UGMs will be prejudiced by being bound by the proposed settlement (if approved) where they are not permitted to participate in that settlement. However, and in accordance with the authorities, that alone does not justify granting their applications to participate in the proposed settlement. As already set out, only UGM Applications which were able to demonstrate unfair prejudice were granted leave to participate in the proposed settlement. To allow otherwise would not be fair as between all group members. As I have already explained, there were compelling reasons for the Court to have made the Class Closure Orders. Where group members failed to register in time in accordance with those orders, absent them establishing unfair prejudice, they should not be permitted to participate in the proposed settlement.
5. I do not consider that permitting 140 UGMs to participate in the proposed settlement has a significant impact on RGMs. Based on the modelling described in paragraphs 67 and 68 above, the dilution effect on RGMs is likely to be marginal.
6. During the hearing, Counsel for the plaintiffs indicated that they would need to revisit the Counsel Opinion once it was known how many UGM Applications were granted and that they may need to re-assess their view as to the reasonableness and fairness of the proposed settlement. Counsel requested that the Court inform them of the number of successful UGM Applications prior to the Court reaching a decision as to whether to approve the proposed settlement, so that the re-assessment could occur if this was necessary. Counsel stated that if the dilution of RGMs was in the realm of 10%, then they did not consider it would be necessary to go through those steps and I could determine the approval application on the basis of the Counsel Opinion and material already filed. In the Fourth UGM Affidavit, Mr Donelly identified 656 UGM Applications as requiring individual review. He referred to Section C of his Third Confidential Affidavit which sets out additional modelling to estimate the quantum of claims by 656 group members and the effect on the proposed settlement if 656 UGMs were granted leave to participate. He says that the results of the modelling show that it would result in a reduction to RGMs of the settlement sum that is less than 10%.
7. On 29 October 2024, at my direction, my Associate sent an email to the parties and the Contradictor to inform them that while my review of UGM Applications was not at that time fully completed, I was in a position to indicate that the number of UGM Applications likely to be granted leave to participate would be less than 656, and asked for confirmation that the position of the plaintiffs' Counsel remained as described above. Later that day, the plaintiffs' solicitors confirmed that their Counsel continued to hold the view that the proposed settlement remains fair and reasonable and that they did not need to file a supplementary opinion.
8. The large number of group members who applied for late registration in this proceeding served to illustrate the challenges and demands which are placed on the Court's resources in Part 4A proceedings. In this instance, the Court was assisted by the work of Maurice Blackburn to review and categorise those applications as it was not practicable for me to review each application individually. The work involved in reviewing these materials was extensive and undoubtedly costly, and those costs will ultimately form part of the costs of this proceeding, which will come out of the settlement amount. That is a legitimate expense which assisted the Court to balance the needs of the efficient administration of justice and fairness among group members and for the group as a whole. The Court was also greatly assisted by the work done by the Contradictor. The process of review also consumed significant time and resources of this Court. Nevertheless, it was important that this opportunity to participate be offered to UGMs, as the 140 applications which I have granted demonstrate that there were some circumstances in which the operation of the Class Closure Orders would, absent the ability to apply for and obtain leave to participate, have caused unfair prejudice.
9. At the settlement approval hearing, the plaintiffs and the Contradictor each identified a number of ways for the Court to consider dealing with the UGM Applications requiring individual review. These options included me doing that review, making orders for it to be done by a special referee, or referring the task to a judicial registrar or associate judge. In the end, after forming a view as to which applications could be dealt with by category so as to identify the number requiring individual review, I decided to do it myself. This will not always necessarily be the most appropriate course. The approach to determining such applications will depend on the circumstances of the particular proceeding, including matters such as the volume of applications for review and their complexity.
10. The scale of this exercise has led me to reflect on the process generally. The fact that there may be instances of group proceedings with large numbers of unregistered group members in itself is not problematic. If the overall number of group members is known or readily ascertainable, it is not difficult to work out how many of them are unregistered. Instances where it is not possible to reliably estimate the size of the group, such that it is unknown whether there is a large number of unregistered group members, are likely to be rare. But it can happen and in this instance it has resulted in a large number of unregistered group members seeking to participate after the class has been closed. Whether there is potential for this to occur is likely to be known at the time orders are made for class closure. Indeed, it can be a significant reason for such orders being necessary. Without class closure orders, settlement negotiations in such instances would likely be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible. The defendant would not be in a position to make a meaningful offer based on an informed estimate of the quantum of the claim, and similarly, the plaintiff and their legal team would have no reliable basis for a view as to whether any settlement offers are reasonable.
11. That said, the earlier such issues can be identified and mechanisms developed to deal with the likely outcomes, including dealing with large numbers of unregistered group members, the more efficient and effective the entire process will be.

1. In considering whether the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable, I have taken into account the objections of group members and been assisted by the submissions of the Contradictor as to how to approach and assess those objections. However, it must be noted that I am not limited in my assessment of the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement by reference only to those matters expressly raised in objections. I make some preliminary comments here about the objections but will deal with particular objections later in these reasons, where they fit thematically. I have also taken into account the submissions made by the plaintiffs and the Contradictor about the objections.
2. It is important that each objector is able to exercise their right to object to the settlement and, consistent with my protective role, I am satisfied that procedural fairness has been accorded to each objector. There is no distinction to be drawn between an objection by a registered or unregistered group member. All group members have a right to object and I have considered all of the objections. I have read all of the written objections to the settlement and listened closely to objectors who spoke at the hearing. In particular, I am grateful to all those who took the time to speak at the hearing. This could not have been easy but it was of great assistance to the Court. It is impossible to ignore the devastation that group members have experienced. Group members described how their livelihoods, retirement nest eggs, and health have suffered, and they attribute this suffering to Uber. They are also very critical of governments and regulatory authorities for not having enforced regulations which would have prevented UberX from operating and for changing regulations in a way which adversely impacted them and for which they do not consider they were properly compensated. Group members are aggrieved and there was almost a sense in which no amount of settlement money could alleviate or redress that impact and those grievances.
3. As noted above at paragraph 18, there were 85 objections made in writing, and around 369 purported UGM Applications were also identified as raising objections to the settlement. Of the 85 group members who provided written objections to the court, a number of group members made oral submissions in support of their objections at the approval hearing.
4. For the sake of brevity, I set out below a summary table of the objections to settlement, adapted from a table included in the Contradictor's written submissions:

Objection Notice is, in whole or in part, a Purported UGM Application

Objection Notice is a Purported UGM Application, and identifies no ground(s) of objection

Objection Notice is both a Purported UGM Application, and a substantive objection, where the group member's objection is that they were unaware of the proceeding

Objection Notice is both a Purported UGM Application, and a substantive objection, where the group member's objection is that it would be unfair to exclude UGMs from participating in the settlement

No grounds of objection identified (blank objection)[89]

Trial should proceed/other defendants should be added

Plaintiffs' legal costs and/or proposed funding commission

1. I refer to particular objections and evidence of objectors in respect of particular themes later in these reasons, as applicable.
2. However, I observe in respect of the objections in themes 1(a) and (b) that they are not, in fact, objections and do not require consideration as such.
3. Objections that fall within 1(c) and (d) have been partly addressed already in section F. In respect of objections within 1(c), the mere fact that an individual objector did not receive the Opt Out and Settlement Notice is not relevant to whether the settlement is fair and reasonable as a whole. In respect of 1(d), I agree with the Contradictor's submission that the objections raise a broader point about the fairness of approving the proposed settlement in light of asserted deficiencies in the notification process in the Class Closure Orders. This goes to whether group members were given proper notice and thereby afforded an opportunity to take steps to protect the[92] position.92 However, I have found that the notice regime was not defective or inadequate, either in its conception or implementation, and so I have not given any weight to objections in th[93] category.93
4. There is no reason for me to take objections which fall within theme 2 in the table at paragraph 193 above into account. Where grounds of objection are not raised, they can have no impact on my assessment of the fairness or reasonableness of the proposed settlement. That 22 group members object without giving a reason is immaterial to that assessment.

H Fairness and reasonableness of the proposed settlement

1. It has been said that there will rarely be an instance in which one outcome of a proceeding is the only fair and reasonable outcome,[94] in fact, it may never be true that there is only one fair and reasonable outcome. I am not required to be satisfied that the parties have reached the only fair and reasonable outcome in order to approve the settlement, just that it falls within the range of fair and reasonable outcomes, in all the circumstances.
2. I have formed the view that the proposed settlement of $271.8 million to compromise the claims of the group is one such fair and reasonable outcome, as between the parties, having regard to the claims of group members. I am also satisfied that the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable as between the group members.
3. The Court has taken the Counsel Opinion on the proposed settlement into account. In this regard, it is not sufficient to assess whether the opinions of the plaintiffs' legal advisers appear reasonable on their face, as I must be independently satisfied of the fairness of the settlement of the proceeding.[95] I do not merely adopt the positions for which Counsel advocate in their opinion, however, I have been assisted by the Counsel Opinion in that it:

(a) addresses in detail the procedural history and background of the litigation;

(b) includes an assessment of the risks of establishing liability, causation, loss and damage;

(c) explores the quantum of settlement as against the potential value of claims of group members;

(d) addresses each of the factors identified in the Practice Note (see paragraph 50 above);

(e) includes an assessment of the SDS;

(f) discusses the UGM Applications; and

(g) discusses the deductions from the settlement sum.

1. Due to the confidential and legally privileged nature of the Counsel Opinion, I am limited in what I can say here about it. I can only talk about it in general terms. I can say that the analysis in the Counsel Opinion is sound. It discusses the abovementioned items in a frank and fulsome way and it fulfils the role required of counsel opinions in these sorts of applications.
2. While the assessment of whether the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable is to be approached in a holistic way, it is convenient to discuss that assessment with reference to certain themes and issues. In this case, such themes and issues include:

(a) the quantum of the proposed settlement and the risks associated with continuing the litigation;

(b) whether it is in the interests of group members for the litigation to continue;

(c) the reaction of group members, in particular the complaints regarding consultation and transparency;

(d) the proposed SDS;

(e) the amount to be deducted from the settlement sum for legal costs;

(f) the amount to be deducted from the settlement sum for the funding commission; and

(g) the amount to be deducted from the settlement sum for payments to the plaintiffs and sample group members.

H.1 Quantum of the proposed settlement and the risks associated with continuing the litigation

1. As set out above, forming a view as to the fairness and reasonableness of the quantum of the proposed settlement is one of the key elements for assessment by the Court.

1. The plaintiffs submit that the settlement sum is fair and reasonable when one has regard to the strengths of the plaintiffs' case as known at the time of settlement, the various risks identified and the additional cost and delay associated with proceeding to trial. As noted earlier, the Counsel Opinion goes into a great deal of analysis about each of these elements and I have been assisted by it.
2. The plaintiffs submit that objections based on the quantum of settlement incorrectly assume that a substantially larger settlement sum could have been achieved by negotiation and/or if the matter proceeded to trial, the Court would necessarily have awarded a larger sum to group members. Insofar as the objectors suggest Uber should receive a greater penalty for its conduct or that this settlement sum is not sufficient to deter future unlawful conduct, they misapprehend the nature of the proceeding. This was a private claim for compensatory damages, not an enforcement or civil penalty proceeding.

1. The Contradictor submits that it is outside the scope of its appointment to make submissions on whether the total settlement sum is fair and reasonable. However, the Contradictor makes submissions regarding the relevance of the general themes raised by objectors regarding the total settlement sum.
2. The Contradictor notes that several objectors state that their likely share of the settlement sum will be insufficient to compensate for the loss they have suffered as a result of Uber's conduct, or to remedy financial insecurity that they find themselves experiencing as a result of Uber's conduct.
3. The Contradictor submits that objections of this nature emphasise the importance of the Court's task in scrutinising the proposed settlement. However, it is necessary and appropriate for the Court to assess group members' perspectives on the adequacy of the settlement sum against the risks, costs, and range of likely outcomes had the matter proceeded to trial.
4. The Contradictor notes that several group members objected on the basis that the settlement sum is not enough to deter Uber and other companies like it from future misconduct. The Contradictor submits that objections of this nature should not be given any weight, as it is not the purpose of civil proceedings for compensation to be awarded or determined based on deterrence of future civil wrongs.
5. The Contradictor notes that some objectors expressed confidence in the merits of the case, suggesting that they were of the view that taking the case to trial would certainly result in higher compensation. The Contradictor submits that objections of this nature should be considered against the assessment of the risks of the case set out in the Counsel Opinion.

1. Fifty written objections raised concerns about the quantum of the settlement. While several of those objections complained of the settlement amount overall when compared with the harm objectors alleged Uber had caused and with Uber's reported net worth, primarily the complaints were directed to what these objectors viewed as inadequate levels of compensation for individual group members. These concerns were also raised by some of the objectors who spoke at the hearing. The recovery for many group members will be less than the amounts of losses they attribute to Uber's actions and less than they had hoped or anticipated to recover through these proceedings.
2. By way of example, I will describe the submissions in this regard made by three of the objectors who appeared at the hearing:

(a) Mr Paul Scaini,[96] a director of Cliffwood Pty Ltd, which is the owner of two Brisbane taxi licences, and who travelled down to Melbourne from Queensland for the hearing, said the following:

I'd also put it to Your Honour that Uber has directly caused my family damages of close to, if not, over $1 million. I would communicate to Your Honour that my consideration that of the likely proportional settlement payments that might flow to us as a class member, I reasonably expect a likely shortfall of perhaps between 95 and 98% of that amount - those losses.

...

[I]f you put some numbers on the back of an envelope, you'll probably come up with about four or five times the amount of the current settlement offer. And the pub test just tells you that the current offer stinks.

(b) Mr Eric Steinhaus, an owner of two NSW taxi plates during the relevant period, said the following:

Reading the amount of around $21,000, as was made public, that each member would possibly receive, you can see that this was a devastating amount, and barely one twentieth of what I was expecting and thought would be reasonable.

...

I don't know how on Earth they came to accept such an amount when they had no idea what the actual amounts were of individual plaintiffs.

(c) Mr Greg Webb, the managing director of Black & White Cabs, said the following:

I see a lack of transparency and available information around the settlement calculations or methodology. Clearly, the $272 million, if I round it up, settlement amount is extremely low, when compared to individual group member losses.

1. I have considered at length the quantum of the settlement, as well as the objections raised in relation to it. I appreciate that the settlement amount is of utmost concern to many group members. Indeed, of all the objections relating to the terms of the settlement, objections to the settlement amount were the most common. Many objectors expressed concern that the settlement amount would not be enough to compensate group members properly for the losses they have suffered. It is likely they will not recover all that they say they have lost. For some objectors, ownership of a taxi licence was their retirement plan. The subsequent loss of income and/or capital value from these licences seriously impacted their financial security. Other objectors say they were forced to work longer hours for fewer fares to make ends meet. For many group members, the stress caused by their financial hardship had a detrimental impact on their health and interpersonal relationships. I have great sympathy for these group members, and I recognise their concerns as valid.
2. That being said, the Contradictor is correct when it says that the Court must balance these concerns against the risks, costs, and range of likely outcomes had the matter proceeded to trial. As such, in assessing the question of quantum, I have turned my mind to the Counsel Opinion, which was provided on a confidential basis to assist the Court to determine whether the proposed settlement of these proceedings is fair, reasonable, and in the interest of group members.
3. In providing their legal opinions, the authors of the Counsel Opinion were acting as officers of the Court, and not as advocates for the plaintiffs or group members. As such, they address matters relevant to the settlement approval candidly and without bias. Although I am limited in what I can say about the opinions expressed within, I will say that the Counsel Opinion:

(a) explains the complexity of the proceedings and the likely duration of any trial;

(b) considers the cost and delay of proceeding to trial;

(c) assesses the risks of establishing liability on the part of Uber, as well as the risks of establishing causation, loss and damage; and

(d) evaluates the fairness and reasonableness of settlement sum, including an estimate of class-wide loss.

1. I consider the analysis provided in the Counsel Opinion to be robust and detailed. As was submitted by the plaintiffs, a compromise of proceedings is rarely ever perfect; it involves a calculation of risk. The Counsel Opinion supports a view that the outcome negotiated in this proceeding is reasonable, and I rely on that opinion in reaching the view that the settlement quantum is fair and reasonable. In addition, I make the following points.
2. It is clear from the First Confidential Affidavit that, armed with information as to how many RGMs there were, the plaintiffs' legal team did a great deal of work on estimating the quantum of the claims prior to the mediation. Again, I cannot go into detail on this because of the confidential and privileged nature of the material, but I am satisfied that the methodology and analysis was sound. That said, there are undoubtedly many ways of approaching the valuation of the group members' claims, which serves to highlight the risks associated with establishing loss and damage if the proceedings went to trial.
3. Some objectors were critical of the plaintiffs, Maurice Blackburn and Harbour for accepting the proposed settlement. This criticism appeared to be based on an assumption that they had just accepted Uber's first offer and that they should have held out for more. At the settlement approval hearing, none of the parties could go into any detail about their negotiations because of their without prejudice nature, but it was apparent that the negotiations had taken place over several months (the mediation having commenced in December 2023). It is to be expected that long-running negotiations would have involved the making of several offers and counter-offers.
4. It was also clear from reading the objections that a number of them were based on a misapprehension as to the Court's role in hearing the settlement approval application. A number of objectors said that I should reject the proposed settlement because it was not enough money, and that I should send Maurice Blackburn back to the negotiating table to get more money from Uber, or that I should tell Uber to pay more. Such objections do not recognise that the Court's role when determining whether to approve the proposed settlement is to either approve or reject it. The Court may make orders different to the ones sought regarding deductions from the settlement amount (for example, the amounts to be deducted for legal fees or funding commissions), but the amount Uber is to pay is either the amount it has agreed to pay under a settlement approved by the Court or the amount it is ordered to pay following a trial. The Court cannot determine how much Uber should pay by way of settlement: all that the Court can do in that respect is determine whether the amount it has agreed to pay in the Deed is a fair and reasonable settlement of the proceedings and, if it is, approve the settlement.
5. While the proceedings settled at the Court's doorstep, as it were, and costs had been incurred to prepare for trial, there would still have been substantial costs incurred and which have been saved by not having to run a 10-week trial (and an appeal, if any). There would also be substantial delay to finalising the proceedings if they went to trial, which would be compounded by any appeal.
6. In my view, the claims made in these proceedings were complex and there were substantial risks associated with most elements of those claims. The cause of action relied upon, while not novel, is not a common one and that itself involves a heightened level of risk. Further, I am not aware of any other class action in Australia which has involved a cause of action such as the one at issue here.
7. No settlement is perfect. By its very nature, settlement involves a compromise, to at least some degree. It is common that with a settlement, not all losses are compensated for. That is to be contrasted with running a matter to verdict following a trial. In the latter instance, liability has to be established. In this case, as already explained, the risks associated with establishing liability on the part of Uber are substantial. If the trial judge does not find that Uber committed the tort of conspiracy by unlawful means (see paragraph 8 above), then that is the end of the proceedings, and Uber would not be liable to pay anything to any group member. If the trial judge does find Uber committed that tort, then the trial judge would likely proceed to determine general matters associated with loss and damage, but the only quantum which would be found at that point would be that associated with the individual plaintiffs, being Mr Andrianakis and Ms Salem, and possibly the sample group members. Further hearings, including detailed evidence and submissions, would then be required for each individual group member. That would be a very lengthy and time-consuming process and there is no guarantee that it would result in a better financial outcome for group members.
8. One of the factors which may be relevant when considering the quantum of a proposed settlement is whether the defendant is capable of withstanding a greater amount. The rationale for this as a relevant factor is that the risks associated with not being able to recover a greater amount are small, if the defendant has sufficient resources available to it to pay that greater amount. In this case, the evidence suggests that Uber would be able to withstand a judgment of an amount greater than $271.8 million, hence recovery risk is not a basis for approving the settlement sum. While I have had regard to this, I do not consider that the likelihood of Uber being able to pay more if ordered to do so outweighs the carefully and comprehensively considered Counsel Opinion and my own balancing of the prospects of a higher amount being ordered with the significant risks associated with taking the proceedings to verdict.
9. Given the significant risks associated with going to trial, which necessarily include the risk of losing, along with the significant costs and delays associated with that course even if the action is successful, I am satisfied that the quantum of the proposed settlement is within the range of fair and reasonable outcomes in all the circumstances.

H.2 Whether it is in the interests of group members for the litigation to continue

1. Intimately connected with the previous issue is the question of whether it is in the interests of group members for the proceedings to continue to trial. I have largely already dealt with this above, but it is worth noting here the objections to the effect that Uber should have its day in Court, that the trial should proceed, or that defendants should be added to the proceedings.
2. Some objections to the settlement were along the lines that the proceedings should proceed to trial so that Uber is held up to public scrutiny, or that the proceedings should have included other defendants such as state governments or regulators. I agree with the Contradictor that these objections do not provide a reason to refuse approval of the settlement. It was open to those objectors to opt out of these proceedings in order to bring a claim against Uber (or other defendants) and to prosecute that claim to trial. Insofar as those objectors seek public accountability for Uber, it is to be remembered that a civil trial is not a royal commission.[97] These proceedings are civil proceedings and are based on compensating group members for the loss and damage alleged to have been caused by the defendants. They are not based on notions of punishing the defendants. It may be that those group members who object because they want Uber to have its day in court do not recognise that the proceedings bore very substantial risks. The plaintiffs may not have won if the matter had proceeded to judgment. The claim was highly complex and the plaintiffs' burden to establish their case was significant. Had the matter proceeded to trial, those group members might well have found themselves similarly unsatisfied with the outcome, including potentially being in the position of receiving less compensation than under the proposed settlement or none at all.

H.3 Reaction of group members, in particular complaints regarding consultation or transparency

1. The reaction of group members to the proposed settlement is also an important factor. In connection with this, I have considered some objections made to the proposed settlement on the grounds that there was insufficient consultation with group members about the proposed settlement before it occurred and/or a lack of transparency about it.

1. Five objections to the proposed settlement were raised on the basis that group members had not been adequately consulted about it, or concerned the requirement for confidentiality undertakings. For example, Mr John Glazebrook, an ex-taxi driver who appeared at the hearing, complained that Maurice Blackburn failed to respond to his questions in a timely way, and that he sees no reason for the need for group members to sign a confidentiality agreement before receiving full information about the proposed settlement.
2. In addition to those objections, at the hearing Mr Webb submitted:

Insufficient information is forthcoming, there has been no presentations, there's no Q & A sessions, there's been no consultation with members around how the settlement was achieved and how it was, particularly how it was calculated. I understand the confidentiality around some of the matters but surely, the methodology or modelling of it could quite easily be provided to members.

1. In respect of consultation and transparency, referring to objections based on an alleged failure to respond to individual queries, the plaintiffs submit that the volume of contact from group members meant that Maurice Blackburn did not provide individualised responses to every enquiry it received before the 2 July Deadline. The Settlement Notice itself provided information about the key elements of the proposed settlement. However, information was available at all times on the Maurice Blackburn website. In his Open Affidavit, Mr Donelly deposes that on 4 June 2024, Maurice Blackburn published a Settlement Distribution Scheme Explanatory Note (SDS Explanatory Note) on the Uber Class Action website. Mr Donelly was of the view that the SDS Explanatory Note would help group members better understand the proposed SDS and how group member claims would be assessed under it (subject to Court approval).
2. The plaintiffs submit that even if group members did not receive an individualised response, they were able to access and review the Settlement Notice, the proposed SDS and the SDS Explanatory Note, which provided sufficient information for group members to assess the proposed settlement. The plaintiffs submit that it was also open to group members to seek their own legal advice (as explained in the Settlement Notice) and that the limited confidentiality regime over the confidential annexures to the SDS is appropriate in the interests of the group as a whole.
3. Mr Donelly deposes as to the reasons for requiring confidentiality undertakings from group members at paragraph 101 of his Open Affidavit. The key reason was that the confidential annexures to the SDS contain material relating to claim valuations that is based on evidence that has not been read in open court, and assessments of risk by Maurice Blackburn and Counsel.

1. The scope of the Contradictor's appointment did not extend to submissions in respect of the number of objections or reactions of group members to the settlement, except insofar as those reactions were recorded in objections to the settlement and the themes arising from the same.
2. In respect of the requirement for confidentiality undertakings from group members raised in objections, the Contradictor submits that it is consistent with the interests of group members as a whole for these matters to be kept confidential and made available to group members upon provision of a confidentiality undertaking. Further, there is substantial public interest in maintaining confidentiality over Counsel's assessment of risks in the Counsel Opinion.

1. It must be remembered that there are over 8,000 RGMs, the overwhelming majority of whom have not lodged any objections to the proposed settlement. As set out in Section G above, leaving aside those objections which were in truth UGM Applications or identified no grounds for objection, around 77 objections raised particular matters or grounds of any substance. This is not a simple numbers game - it is not a matter of weighing up the number of group members who have not objected compared with the number who do object. However, the fact that very few group members objected and the vast majority (in not raising objections) appear to have reacted positively to the settlement is a factor in favour of the settlement being approved. Rather than focusing on the number of objections, my approach has been to consider the substance and content of the objections.
2. I have dealt with other grounds raised by objections in other sections of these reasons. Here, I will address the issue of consultation and transparency as raised by some objectors.
3. First, it is unrealistic to expect that all group members will be consulted before the plaintiffs agreed to the proposed settlement, particularly in the context of large class actions such as the present. To consider otherwise is to ignore the very nature and features of group proceedings of this scale. Further, plaintiffs in group proceedings are not required to consult with all group members. In part, that group members' interests and rights may be affected is one of the reasons that the Court exercises its protective jurisdiction in respect of the approval of settlements. In any event, the evidence establishes that throughout the proceedings, regular updates were provided to RGMs, and more generally via Maurice Blackburn's website.
4. Second, it is also unrealistic and impossible for the plaintiffs to share their legal advice regarding the proposed settlement with group members, as to do so is likely to constitute a waiver of legal professional privilege in that advice.
5. Third, I do not accept that insufficient information about the proposed SDS was made available to group members. In this regard:

(a) the criticism that it is not known how much an individual group member will actually receive is misguided, in that this cannot be worked out until the total number of participating RGMs and the quantum of their claims is assessed, and those claims are then prorated to the proportion of the settlement sum available for distribution to group members;

(b) the proposed SDS and the confidential annexures (which were available to group members on provision of a confidentiality undertaking) contain sufficient information for group members to see how the quantum of claims has been dealt with; and

(c) the requirement that group members provide a confidentiality undertaking before being given the confidential annexures to the proposed SDS was reasonable in all the circumstances.

1. Because the proposed SDS provides for differentiation between the treatment of group members, I am required to determine whether that differentiation is fair and reasonable.[98] Differential treatment can be explicable, including because of differences in the nature of the claims made or damage sustained by the group members. For the reasons that follow, the differential treatment in this case is fair and reasonable, and the SDS as a whole is fair and reasonable and ought be approved.

1. I draw the following overview of the SDS from the plaintiffs' written submissions.
2. As noted earlier in these reasons, the SDS provides for five types of claims, reflecting the different claims made in the proceeding. They are: capital loss claims, lease income loss claims, operator claims, driver claims, and NSP claims. Each type of claim (other than an NSP claim) has been assessed by identifying a starting loss value, and then applying a series of discounts. NSP claims are to be individually assessed and a discount to the assessed loss is then to be applied.
3. The starting values reflect the plaintiffs' legal team's assessment of the claims themselves based upon the evidence, including expert evidence, and other analyses that they have done, including statistical modelling for each type of claim (except NSP claims). The discounts have been arrived at through a similar process and reflect the legal team's assessment of the relevant strengths, weaknesses and risks of the different types of claims.
4. The result of that process is the 'Assessment Figure' for the capital loss claims, lease income loss claims, operator claims and driver claims. It follows that identically situated group members will receive identical payments. For example, each registered group member who owned a single unrestricted taxi licence in Melbourne throughout the relevant period will receive the same payment.
5. As a result, for claims other than NSP claims, the scheme administrator will not conduct an enquiry into the circumstances or losses of any individual group member, or require group members to produce financial records or other direct evidence of loss. The distributions will therefore not be based on a calculation of the actual loss suffered by an individual group member.
6. The SDS involves the following key steps:

(a) Claim data determination: The scheme administrator notifies registered group members of the 'Claim Data' recorded on the database in respect of their claim(s), such as the number and type of taxi licences the group member held during the relevant period. Registrants can then amend or update their claim data. The scheme administrator may take steps, including requesting material from third parties, to confirm the accuracy of a group member's claim data. The administrator then notifies the group member of the finalised claim data.

(b) Eligibility determination: Once the claim data is finalised, the scheme administrator determines whether each registrant is eligible to receive compensation under the scheme. Eligible registrants are then referred to as 'participating group members'.

(c) Assessment: The scheme administrator then assesses the claim(s) of each participating group member. This is done primarily by applying the relevant 'assessment figure' to each claim. The assessment figures prescribe a set loss assessment for each type of claim. Where a person only participated in the industry for part of the relevant period, or held a partial ownership interest, their claim will be prorated or assessed proportionally.

(d) Review: A group member has a right of review of the scheme administrator's decision in respect of claim data; a decision that the group member is not eligible to participate in the settlement; and the assessment of the group member's loss. Reviews will be performed by a member of Counsel or a solicitor independent of Maurice Blackburn of more than five years' experience, engaged as an independent arbitrator. There are time limits for lodging reviews and payment of a bond is required (which is refunded depending on the outcome of the review).

(e) Distribution: The settlement sum, less approved deductions, is then distributed to group members in the proportion which their final assessed loss bears to the aggregate assessed loss of all participating group members.

1. The plaintiffs note that one group member may have multiple claims, assessed by reference to separate 'Assessment Figures'. For example, an individual who owned a taxi licence, operated the taxi vehicle and drove the taxi during the relevant period would have three claims: a capital loss claim, an operator claim and a driver claim.
2. The SDS is not the subject of a confidentiality claim, save for the assessment figures. As has already been described, group members were provided with a copy of these assessment figures upon request, subject to providing an undertaking as to group membership and confidentiality. The assessment figures are treated as confidential because they reflect valuations contained in expert evidence that had not been read in open court, and assessments of relative risk by Maurice Blackburn and the plaintiffs' Counsel.

1. The plaintiffs submit that the proposed SDS will provide fair procedures for the distribution of the settlement sum for the reasons that follow.
2. First, registered group members will have an opportunity to confirm (and amend if necessary) their claim data. This is an important step, because the content of the claim data largely determines both a group member's eligibility to participate in the distribution at all, and the assessment figure to be applied to their claim(s). The claim data confirmation procedure enables group members to ensure that their claim data is accurate.
3. Second, the SDS provides a right of review at each critical stage of the distribution process: the determination of a registered group member's claim data, the determination of eligibility to participate in the scheme, and the assessment of the group member's loss. These stages are described as critical because the claim data is central to a group member's eligibility and the applicable assessment figure, and eligibility and assessment decisions respectively determine whether a person can participate in the settlement and the assessment of their loss.
4. Third, it is necessary for appropriate individuals to be appointed to administer the scheme. As noted above, it is proposed that Maurice Blackburn act in the role of scheme administrator. The plaintiffs are not aware of any matter that would suggest that Maurice Blackburn could not, or ought not, act as the scheme administrator. I will return to the identity and appointment of the scheme administrator later in these reasons.
5. Fourth, as noted above, the scheme administrator will not conduct an enquiry into the circumstances or losses of any individual registered group member, or require group members to produce financial records or other direct evidence of loss. Nor will the distributions precisely reflect the actual loss suffered by an individual group member.
6. The plaintiffs submit that this approach is justified given the complexity, delay and significant cost that a more individualised approach would entail. The proposed approach also avoids the evidentiary challenges associated with individual assessments.
7. In the plaintiffs' view, the costs and delay of an individualised assessment procedure would likely outweigh any benefits of a more exact distribution, and accordingly would not be in the best interests of group members. The plaintiffs consider that the proposed distribution by formula is fair and reasonable and will ensure the settlement sum is distributed as promptly as possible without being unnecessarily dissipated. Further, in the plaintiffs' view, the proposed SDS provides for broadly fair relativities as between classes of group members.
8. The plaintiffs submit that both the starting loss values and the proposed discounts are fair and reasonable, and that the scheme as a whole leads to a distribution that is fair as between all group members.
9. The plaintiffs note that NSP claims will be assessed on an individual basis, rather than by reference to a prescribed assessment figure. In this respect, the SDS treats NSP claims differently from the other types of claims. However, the plaintiffs consider that this approach is fair in the circumstances, and rely on the First Confidential Affidavit in this regard.

1. Ten objections were identified by Maurice Blackburn as relating to the proposed SDS.
2. The Contradictor submits that objections to the proposed SDS are highly relevant to the overall reasonableness and fairness of the proposed settlement, because these objections go to the fairness of the settlement as between group members. Accordingly, the Contradictor reviewed each of the 10 objections in this category and addressed each of the objections that raise detailed, substantive concerns about the SDS in their submissions. I outline these objections below.
3. Mr Steinhaus objected on the basis that, had each participant in the class action been given an opportunity to substantiate their individual losses upon registration, 'Maurice Blackburn would have had a much more accurate picture of what the total settlement should have been'.
4. Mr Steinhaus's objection is to the use in the proposed SDS of a categorical approach to assessing group members' share of the settlement sum, rather than requiring the scheme administrator to conduct individualised loss assessments.
5. The Contradictor submits that Mr Steinhaus' objection can be considered alongside the following points:

(a) Courts have recognised that the benefits of individualised settlement allocations must be balanced against the costs and practicalities of conducting individualised loss assessments.

(b) The assessment of the appropriateness of the proposed SDS is essentially a pragmatic exercise. The scheme need not be perfectly accurate or efficient to be fair and reasonable. The process of assessing claims under a settlement distribution scheme 'is intended to provide a reasonable process by which claims of group members can be processed fairly and efficiently without the need for court intervention'.[99] As Mortimer J (as her Honour then was) said in the context of approving a settlement, '[f]airness and reasonableness are moderate standards, rather than ones which require absolute certainty or confidence in a particular point of view about legal issues, if there can ever be such certainty in the law in any event'.[100]

(c) The plaintiffs have adduced evidence to the effect that the total costs of undertaking an individual loss assessment for each group member would be substantial, result in significant delays in making distributions, and would not necessarily generate more accurate results for many group members.

1. At the approval hearing, the Contradictor made the following submission:

As to the method of assessment, there is no doubt as a matter of law, that a flat distribution method under a settlement distribution scheme, is allowed. The question, therefore, is not whether this is permissible but whether it's fair and reasonable. That is to be assessed by reference to the internal workings of the settlement and the justification for differential treatment between group members. Scientific precisions is not required.

The features of the settlement distribution scheme have been the subject of submissions by the plaintiff. We have reviewed the settlement distribution scheme, the written submission and the affidavits. We note that the claims assessment process is not what I would describe as a simple flat distribution, where settlement sums are split equally between all group members. There is a considerable degree of granularities in the assessment scheme, as Ms Szydzik outlined yesterday.

Having regard to the interests of all group members, we consider that the assessment of each category of claim, so that is owner, drive and licence holder, by a set loss figure, is explicable in the circumstances. While individual assessment is possible, it will be complicated and for that reason, time consuming and expensive. The evidence in the confidential affidavit ... as to the estimated cost and time of preparing individual assessments is, we consider, persuasive.

1. Mr Stanley McCallum and Ms Marianne McCallum objected on the basis that, for capital loss claims and owner lease claims, the differentiation in loss assessments as between Brisbane and regional Queensland is disproportionate. They give the example of licence owners in Cairns, who enjoy four times as much lease income as licence owners in Brisbane. Relatedly, Taxicab Investments Pty Ltd states that the 'methodology utilised to determine the losses by region has not been disclosed'.
2. The Contradictor submits that evidence regarding the basis for the geographical differentiations in the SDS for capital loss claims and owner lease claims has been adduced by the plaintiffs, and that geographical discounts were calculated based on an analysis by Maurice Blackburn of discovered UberX trip data which showed the 'service areas' of UberX during the relevant period. The Contradictor submits that while the data underlying the 'Area of Operation Discount' is not in evidence, there appears to be a rational basis for applying discounts based on the geographical area of a relevant group member's operations.
3. Finally, Taxicab Investments objects on the basis that, because the total number of group members or their allocations to the various categories under the SDS have not been determined (or at least estimated), it is impossible to know whether the settlement is fair and reasonable. The Contradictor submits that, as a practical matter, it is only possible to determine the total number of group members and the loss categories into which they fall once the process of settlement administration has been conducted. It is inevitable that, at this stage, there will be uncertainty about how and to whom the settlement fund is ultimately to be distributed.
4. At the approval hearing, the Contradictor expanded upon this submission:

As to the submission that without knowing the amount that group members might receive, it's not possible to assess the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement scheme, we agree that this is important information.

...

As I stated earlier, it may be necessary for the court to first determine the number of unregistered group members who are permitted to participate, before a final decision can be made on whether the settlement is approved.

But to the extent that an objection concerns individual assessment, so the objection being that it's impossible to say if a settlement is fair and reasonable without knowing what each individual group member might receive, we don't agree that that is a basis for not approving the settlement.

That is because precision of return is not possible until the claims assessment process has been undertaken, which involves thousands of group members providing their claim data, having their eligibility determined, checking both of these matters and then awaiting the completion of the review process. Uncertainty at this stage is inherent in the nature of any settlement scheme and the return to individual group members is not determinative of the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement as a whole.

1. The Contradictor did not identify any objections to the claims assessment and review processes contained in the proposed SDS.

1. Two of the objectors who appeared at the hearing expanded upon some of the themes identified in the written objections referred to above. In particular:

Is it fair and reasonable that Maurice ...Blackburn has also accepted a modelling system that is their settlement distribution scheme has been discredited? It was discredited by the Royal Commission into the Robodebt crisis.

...

So what we're seeing is that the court has accepted, passively accepted, a seriously flawed modelling scheme.

(b) Mr Stephen Lacaze, who along with his wife owns a taxi in Brisbane, said the following:

[T]he notion that it is impossible to construct a fair settlement distribution, which was mentioned again today, when the size and composition of the class is unknown, has been perhaps little cursorily explored.

But it seems to be quite a definitive part. The burning question has to be, how is it even possible to conduct a fair - construct a fair settlement distribution scheme when the size and composition of the class remains unknown. We can deal with maybe one variable, but when we have two variables, it - it's not something we can work with. I cannot see any way to construct a fair and reasonable settlement distribution scheme. And the only way you could do it is to reduce it to percentages, and those percentages, as Mr Scaini revealed, start getting disturbingly small.

1. I am satisfied that the proposed SDS provides a fair procedure for the distribution of the settlement sum for the reasons outlined by the plaintiffs. It provides for multiple types of claims, reflecting the different circumstances of the registered group members. It involves a robust, multi-stage process for amending or updating registrant claim data, determining registrant eligibility, assessing the value of each claim based on the type and duration of each registrant's interest, and the distribution of the settlement sum, less approved deductions. It also includes a mechanism by which registered group members can request a review of the scheme administrator's decision in respect of their claim data, eligibility determination, or assessment.
2. Objections were made, both in writing and during the hearing, to the claims assessment approach contained in the SDS, being one not involving individual assessment (save for NSP claims). As was submitted by the Contradictor, the benefits of assessing each group member's claim on an individual basis must be balanced against the cost and practicality of doing so. Mr Donelly deposes that individual assessments of 8,701 claims (the number of RGMs) would involve legal and accounting costs in the range of $50-55 million and approximately three years to carry out. Mr Donelly deposes that an individual loss assessment for each group member would not necessarily generate more accurate results for them. What is more, his estimate is based on the 8,701 registered group members and does not include the further 140 presently unregistered group members who have been granted leave to participate in the settlement.
3. If his estimate of the costs and time associated with individual assessments is correct, and I have no reason to think it is not, then in my view it would be prohibitively expensive and productive of significant delay. This significantly outweighs any benefits that individualised assessment might offer. I consider that these factors justify the approach taken in the SDS. In my view, the proposed assessment method fairly takes into account the different types of claims such that it is fair as between group members, and the assessment of all claims (except NSP claims) by category is a reasonable way to distribute the balance of the settlement sum to participating group members. I also accept that the assessment methodology for NSP claims is appropriate.
4. There are 8,701 registered group members in this proceeding. In addition to this, as stated at paragraph 181 above, I have accepted 140 of the 5742 UGM Applications. Without a streamlined distribution scheme, each of these 8,841 group members' claims would need to be assessed on an individual basis. If the cost of assessing each claim is even a fraction of the cost outlined by Mr Donelly, an individualised distribution scheme would result in a substantial reduction of the settlement amount, and a dwindling payout to group members.
5. I anticipate that the individual assessment of the claims of all participating group members may be hindered by evidentiary challenges (as a significant proportion of group members may not have kept documents and records from the relevant period) and language barriers (as a significant proportion of group members do not speak English as their first language).
6. As was submitted by the Contradictor, the Court's assessment of the appropriateness of the proposed SDS is essentially an exercise in pragmatism. The SDS does not need to be perfectly accurate in its distribution to group members for me to find that it is fair and reasonable. I am satisfied that the proposed SDS strikes an acceptable balance between the fairness to group members on the one hand and practicality on the other.
7. In relation to the question of whether the SDS ought to take into consideration the geographical location of group members, I agree with the Contradictor that there appears to be a rational basis for applying discounts based on the geographical area of a relevant group member's operations, and this should be reflected in the SDS.
8. Lastly, there were objections that until the total number of participating group members and their allocations to the various categories under the SDS have been determined, it is not possible to know whether the SDS is fair and reasonable. I accept that there exists a degree of uncertainty in the proposed SDS because of certain matters that are not known. However, I do not consider this warrants refusing the proposed SDS, for two reasons:

(a) First, I have only accepted a limited number of unregistered group member applications, and I do not consider that they dilute the settlement to an unacceptable degree. As such, the maximum number of participating group members is known (albeit the number of claims by each group member is not yet known).

(b) Second, I am of the opinion that if the categories of distribution under the SDS are fair and reasonable in their formulation, then it matters little how many group members ultimately fall within each category. While the settlement amount is large, so is the number of group members. The SDS categories work to distribute the settlement amount based on the nature of each participating group member's claim, so that each participating group member receives an amount that is reasonably proportionate in the circumstances. As such, how many participating group members fall into each category does not adversely affect the fairness of the scheme.

1. Furthermore, I agree with the Contradictor when it says that, as a matter of practicality, it is only possible to determine the total number of participating group members and the loss categories into which they fall once the process of settlement administration has been conducted. I also accept the Contradictor's submission that uncertainty at this stage is inherent in any settlement scheme of this nature.
2. Finally, the Counsel Opinion also discusses the proposed SDS, providing a frank opinion about it, and concluding that it is fair and reasonable. I accept this opinion.

H.5 Legal costs and uplift to Maurice Blackburn

H.5.1 Overview of what the plaintiffs seek

1. The Settlement Notice included information about legal costs, stating that the Court would be asked to approve the deduction of reasonable legal costs and disbursements incurred by the plaintiffs in conducting these proceedings from the settlement sum, and that Maurice Blackburn estimates that these costs will total approximately $36.5 million. The Settlement Notice also stated that the final amount the plaintiffs seek to have deducted from the settlement sum may vary from this estimate, since it was not possible to predict at that time the exact amount of legal costs that will be incurred to the finalisation of the proceedings.
2. By the time of the approval hearing, the plaintiffs sought approval for their legal costs and disbursements up to and including 10 September 2024 in the amount of $38,600,494.37. This was based on the amount for the period up to 30 April 2024 assessed by the Costs Referee as reasonable, together with an estimate for the period from 1 May 2024 to the end of the settlement approval hearing (based on actuals to 31 August 2024 and an estimate thereafter, the total of which was less than the amount for that period estimated by the Costs Referee as reasonable), an estimate for the Rosengrave Proceeding (the estimate for which the Costs Referee had assessed as reasonable) and for the Contradictor's costs. Following the hearing, the information before me as to the legal costs and disbursements was updated by Mr Donelly in the Third Confidential Affidavit, primarily on the basis that amounts which had previously been estimated were now known. That updated figure is $38,698,628.81. This is more than contained in the Settlement Notice: Mr Donelly deposes that this is due to that amount not including the costs of the Costs Referee, the Contradictor, the Rosengrave Proceeding, dealing with the significant and unexpected number of enquiries and applications from UGMs (including the costs of triaging, analysing and reviewing those applications), or communicating the outcome of the approval hearing to group members and responding to their enquiries.
3. The amount sought to be approved as a deduction from the settlement sum for legal costs and disbursements does not include the amounts associated with administering the proposed SDS. A separate process will be put in place for those additional costs. The plaintiffs propose that a costs assessor provide four reports to the Court on the costs of administering the SDS over the course of the administration.
4. A portion of Maurice Blackburn's fees were not covered by Harbour. Included within the amount sought to be approved for legal costs and disbursements is a 25% uplift on that portion of the fees.

1. The relevant legal principles regarding the Court's role in approving the legal costs and the factors to be taken into account were comprehensively set out by Nichols J in Lenehan v Powercor Australia Ltd.[101] While I have not set these out here, I have had regard to and applied those principles.
2. In their submissions on legal costs, the plaintiffs provide a brief summary of the Court's role, with which I agree:

(a) the Court must satisfy itself that the plaintiffs' legal costs, which are to be deducted from the settlement sum, are reasonable in all the circumstances;[102]

(b) a Court-appointed referee may be used for the purpose of this assessment;[103] and

(c) the Court's role in assessing costs is supervisory.[104]

1. As noted earlier in these reasons, I made orders in the proceeding appointing Ms Dealehr as a special referee, independent of the parties, for the purpose of conducting an inquiry and making a written report stating, with reasons, her opinion on the reasonableness of the plaintiffs' legal costs and disbursements incurred in relation to the proceedings (up to and including the settlement approval hearing) and on the reasonableness of the sum proposed for settlement administration costs. Ms Dealehr provided the Costs Referee's Report on 28 June 2024.
2. Ms Dealehr's experience and expertise is described in the Cost Referee's Report and I am satisfied that she is appropriately qualified to perform this role. She has decades of experience as a costs lawyer and has prepared numerous independent expert costs reports, including as a court-appointed costs referee, for this and other courts in representative proceedings.
3. The voluminous materials considered by Ms Dealehr are described in the Costs Referee's Report. These were provided to her by Maurice Blackburn and she was also able to request further information if she required it. I am satisfied that the material available to Ms Dealehr was sufficient to enable her to carry out her task.
4. In her report, Ms Dealehr acknowledges the Court's protective role in relation to group members' interests resulting from the information asymmetry in class actions where group members do not commonly have a retainer with the law practice and/or where class members do not have any control over the costs incurred. Ms Dealehr cites the relevant section of Powercor Australia in the Costs Referee's Report.
5. Ms Dealehr uses the 'gross sum' costs method of calculating and assessing the legal fees charged by Maurice Blackburn. Ms Dealehr expresses the view that this method is the most costs effective procedure available where the claims for legal costs are substantial.
6. The method used by Ms Dealehr to assess the professional fees charged up to 30 April 2024 involved six discrete steps:

(a) Verifying electronic time entries for accuracy.

(b) Applying reasonable hourly rates to work performed by principal lawyers, special counsel, senior associates, associates, lawyers, trainee lawyers/law graduates, paralegals/law clerks, litigation technology consultants, and client services officers.

(c) Analysing time entries and categorising them based on:

(i) which phase in the proceeding they occurred;

(ii) which task was being performed in the relevant phase; and

(iii) the nature of the work done within the task.

(d) Removing amounts associated for non-claimable time for task such as reviewing the costs agreement, and time recording entries which appeared to duplicate work that had already been claimed.

(e) Applying discounts for activities such as communications within the internal team, solicitors performing clerical work, and single unit time recordings.

(f) Applying the solicitors' uplift fee to the unfunded professional fees allowable.

1. Ms Dealehr reviewed the claimed disbursements. She examined each Counsel's hourly and daily rates and concluded that they were fair and reasonable. She also examined the fees charged by each Counsel, grouping them according to phases and time spent, and reviewing the seniority of Counsel in terms of the division of the work. She identified one entry which appeared to be a duplicate entry and disallowed it. With that exception, Ms Dealehr's opinion is that the disbursements for Counsels' fees were reasonable.
2. Maurice Blackburn engaged a number of experts over the course of these proceedings, three of which prepared expert reports that were ultimately filed. Ms Dealehr was provided the experts' reports, invoices and letters of engagement. In Ms Dealehr's opinion and experience, the hourly rates claimed by all of the experts (whether evidence of those experts was filed or not) are within a reasonable range for experts in their respective fields and appear proportionate to the work undertaken. The rates reflect their high level of expertise in specialised fields.
3. Maurice Blackburn incurred court-related expenses such as filing fees, eTrial services, transcription fees, and Assessor's Fees payable to Funds in Court. Maurice Blackburn also incurred document management expenses, travel expenses for meeting with group members across Australia, as well as various other miscellaneous expenses. Invoices for all of these expenses were examined to confirm that they are relevant to these proceedings and checked for errors. With the exception of a small amount which Ms Dealehr considered should not be allowed, she viewed these expenses as reasonably incurred and of a reasonable amount.
4. Maurice Blackburn provided Ms Dealehr with an estimate of its future costs from 1 May 2024 up to and including the settlement approval hearing on 9 and 10 September 2024. In Ms Dealehr's opinion, Maurice Blackburn's estimated professional fees and disbursements, including the claim for an uplift fee, appear reasonable. Ms Dealehr bases her opinion on her experience in what legal costs have been allowed in class actions in which she was directly involved and which have been approved by the courts.
5. Lastly, Maurice Blackburn provided Ms Dealehr with a letter setting out the estimate of costs for the settlement administration should Maurice Blackburn be appointed settlement administrator. However, Ms Dealehr considered that it was too difficult at this stage as a costs expert to form an opinion on whether Maurice Blackburn's estimated future professional fees and disbursements post-approval to the completion of the scheme administration were reasonable.
6. Ms Dealehr notes that, pursuant to s 172 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (Vic), a law practice must charge costs that are no more than fair and reasonable in all the circumstances and that in particular are proportionately and reasonably incurred; and proportionate and reasonable in amount.
7. In Ms Dealehr's opinion, the legal costs incurred by Maurice Blackburn are not disproportionate to the work performed, taking into account the complexity and importance of the dispute, as well as the amount in dispute. Ms Dealehr bases her opinion on her experience in what legal costs have been allowed in class actions in which she was directly involved and which have been approved by the courts.

1. In their written submissions, the plaintiffs note that the precise amount of legal costs and disbursements proposed to be deducted from the settlement sum is not presently known because Maurice Blackburn has not finalised its legal costs and disbursements for the period from 1 May 2024 up to the date of the settlement approval hearing, including costs relating to the Contradictor's expenses.
2. However, at the hearing, Counsel for the plaintiffs confirmed that the plaintiffs seek an order approving the payment of their costs and disbursements fixed in the sum of $38.6 million across the four proceedings, up to and including 10 September 2024, but not including the costs of administering the SDS. The plaintiffs submit that the amount it seeks reflects the amount that Ms Dealehr opined is reasonable.
3. The plaintiffs note that that at the time Ms Dealehr was appointed as referee, there was by necessity some estimate involved in the future legal costs that were provided to her. Once these costs were actually incurred, the plaintiffs filed a further affidavit of Mr Donelly that relates specifically to the costs that were incurred between the filing of the Costs Referee's Report and the hearing, including the costs of the Contradictor. The plaintiffs submit that its costs incurred during this period, including the Contradictor's costs, came in under what had been assessed as reasonable by Ms Dealehr.
4. In the First Confidential Affidavit, as well as during the submissions made at the hearing, the plaintiffs accept Ms Dealehr's opinion as to the costs and disbursements. The plaintiffs make no objection to the discounts applied by Ms Dealehr in arriving at this estimate.
5. The plaintiffs acknowledge that Ms Dealehr said she was not able to provide an opinion on Maurice Blackburn's proposed legal costs in relation to settlement administration. The plaintiffs propose that a costs assessor provide four reports on the costs of administering the SDS over the course of the administration.

1. As noted above at paragraph 16, the Contradictor was appointed for a limited purpose, that being to review any notices of objection to the proposed settlement and applications by unregistered group members to participate in the proposed settlement lodged by group members by the 2 July Deadline, and to make any submissions about the common themes arising from such a review.
2. One category of objections identified by the Contradictor concerned the plaintiffs' legal costs and/or the proposed funding commission. The Contradictor identifies five objections that fall into this category. According to the Contradictor, the substance of these objections is that Maurice Blackburn and Harbour are the primary beneficiaries of the litigation.
3. The Contradictor submits that it is beyond the scope of its appointment to make submissions regarding the appropriateness of allowing the proposed deductions from the settlement fund for legal fees and disbursements. However, it is submitted that the objections should be assessed by the Court as part of the overall assessment of the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement, in light of the likely costs and risks of the case, should it proceed. The Court can consider this category of objections against the findings of the Costs Referee's Report, which deals with the reasonableness of the plaintiffs' legal costs and disbursements.

1. Harbour made no written submission on the subject of the legal costs or uplift fee.
2. In oral submissions, Counsel for Harbour noted that a total of five written objections took issue with the plaintiffs' legal costs or the funding commission, but that none of those objections, on Harbour's review, contained an objection to the quantum or percentage of the funding commission. As such, Harbour said it made no submissions in relation to those objections.

1. Four of the objectors appearing at the hearing objected to the amount of the legal costs and/or uplift fee proposed to be paid to Maurice Blackburn.
2. Mr Glazebrook said the following in reference to the settlement amount:

Forty percent of that is going out in costs. And many of us, like myself, have lost $100,000. Maurice and Blackburn are not going to lose any money. None of the other riders are not going to lose any money. Because the people have been lured into this scheme to make money for them, who are going to lose money. I think that's unfair, and if this court accepts it, I believe it's immoral.

I find it amazing that the legal team now considers it somehow equitable that class members be the big losers of their decision makers that collectively sees them and the funder walk away with well over $100m and us virtually nothing.

I find it curious that the agreed settlement ensures that legal rewards and litigation funder rewards are provided for, if not perhaps in full, but with absolute certainty. Class members are faced with what seems to be an ever-diminishing amount of unfair financial returns with the possible admission of new members likely meaning even greater unfair and unreasonable returns to class members.

I turn my mind then to the legal and administrative costs. My research indicates that legal costs, that the legal cost proposed of $38.6m was mentioned yesterday, are at the very high or top end, when compared to other historical class actions. I read a paper recently from King & Wood Mallesons, a paper they prepared on class actions in Australia 2022/2023. And they had a very dynamic grid that set out, you know, the costs associated with class actions and it was good reading and from that, and looking at the amount of money that we're talking about here, for a case that's not going to trial, I found that the cost incurred or the cost proposed by Maurice Blackburn, to be extremely high, at the very high top end.

1. Mr Steinhouse said the following, referring to reports by Menzies Research Centre into class action litigation and litigation funding in Australia:

In accordance with the evidence provided in the form of the Menzies Research Centre documents mentioned above, they document an outrageous system that has developed in Australia, based on pure greed by law firms, financial funders of these cases, and are totally unreasonable.

...

Between Maurice Blackburn and Harbour, they have absorbed 40 per cent of the settlement amount. Is this just or reasonable or is it outrageous profiteering at the plaintiffs' expense?

If Maurice Blackburn have been already paid by Harbour for their expenses of 36.5m, then I object to Maurice Blackburn attempting to double-dip and ask to be paid a further 36.5m of a settlement amount. This - this doesn't seem to add up if Harbour's already paid them, how can they then request a - like - like, this amount out of settlement figures. I object to Maurice Blackburn seeking a 25 percent uplift.

This is normally only done if the law firm conducts a no win no fee case. This is not the case here. Maurice Blackburn seems to be wantonly double-dipping, and it's unreasonable as there was no financial risk here as they were being funded by Harbour. This should not be permitted, and these funds be kept for the general pool for compensation.

1. In response to the suggestion that there was double-dipping by Maurice Blackburn in relation to costs, Counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that this is not the way payment from the settlement sum occurs. The approved amount for legal fees and disbursements is paid to Maurice Blackburn, who then passes on to Harbour the amount it has already funded during the course of the litigation. It is not that Maurice Blackburn gets paid twice; rather, Harbour is reimbursed for legal costs and disbursements it has already paid. Maurice Blackburn keeps the remainder, which represents the fees for which its agreement with Harbour provided that it was not funded, and the uplift fee. That uplift fee of 25% applies only to the unfunded portion of its legal fees.

1. The plaintiffs make few submissions on the reasonableness of Maurice Blackburn's legal fees, disbursements and uplift fee, save for the fact that the fees and disbursements fall within the range viewed by Ms Dealehr to be reasonable. That approach is appropriate. The plaintiffs are hardly in a position to comment objectively on the reasonableness of the costs charged by their own legal representatives.
2. The Contradictor, having not been appointed to make submissions on the reasonableness of Maurice Blackburn's legal costs, likewise does not make many submissions on this topic. The Contradictor instead refers the Court to the Costs Referee's Report.
3. Turning then to the Costs Referee's Report. I am somewhat constrained in what I am able to say in these reasons about the Costs Referee's Report, given its confidential status. However, I have carefully read and considered it, and I am satisfied that Ms Dealehr conducted her inquiry and made her written report in a satisfactory way and that the opinions she expresses therein are reasonably held. The assessment of costs in a group proceeding such as this is a lengthy and complex process. Appropriately, the Costs Referee's Report is detailed and well‑considered, authored by an experienced costs specialist, and its conclusions are consistent with the costs order sought by the plaintiffs. As such, I am satisfied that the legal costs and uplift fee proposed to be paid to Maurice Blackburn are reasonable in all the circumstances.
4. The amount sought by the plaintiffs for professional fees incurred to 30 April 2024 is less than the amount which Ms Dealehr considered would be reasonable after applying the above methodology.
5. I note that Maurice Blackburn's estimated costs in administering the SDS have not been assessed as reasonable by Ms Dealehr, not because she regards them as unreasonable, but because those costs are not yet known and so Ms Dealehr is not in a position to express an opinion. The plaintiffs' proposal that regular reports on the costs of administering the SDS be given to the Court by a costs assessor is an appropriate one, as it will allow the Court to retain ongoing supervision of costs incurred.
6. Finally, I have given due consideration to the objections on this topic. I appreciate that some group members are dissatisfied with the quantum of the settlement amount, and that most will receive a share of the settlement that is considerably less than the losses they attribute to the conduct of the Uber Entities. In such circumstances, it is understandable that many group members are frustrated that a significant portion of the settlement will go to paying the plaintiffs' legal costs and disbursements. However, it is important to note that group proceedings such as this one are large, complex and time consuming. They require significant amounts of work from teams of experienced lawyers and involve myriad expenses in order to litigate the claims effectively. Group proceedings often take many years to get to trial or settlement, during which time these costs continue to be incurred. As observed early in these reasons, the proceedings have been on foot for some years. There have been many complex contested interlocutory disputes and some appeals. All of the work required for preparation of evidence and for trial had been done before the proposed settlement was reached. The costs associated with all of this work are considerable, because the work done was sizeable and time-consuming. Having dealt with some of the interlocutory disputes myself, principally those concerning discovery, I have seen first-hand the product of some of that work. I am confident that Ms Dealehr has paid due consideration to all of the relevant factors when making her report. Her conclusion was that the legal costs, disbursements and uplift fee are reasonable and I accept her findings, which have enabled me to be satisfied that the legal costs, disbursements and uplift are reasonable. In respect of the uplift, this is calculated only on the portion of Maurice Blackburn's fees which were not funded by Harbour. In circumstances where Maurice Blackburn bore the risk associated with those fees, an uplift fee is reasonable.

1. Part of the Court's consideration of the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed settlement involves determining whether a funding commission should be paid to Harbour.
2. Harbour's litigation funding agreement with the plaintiffs and some group members provides that Harbour is to receive 30% of the amount awarded by the Court if successful at trial or of the settlement sum if the proceedings are settled. Approximately 98% of RGMs have entered into a funding agreement with Harbour.
3. In these proceedings, Harbour proposes that the Court make a common fund order for the payment of a funding commission in the amount of $81.54 million, which is approximately 30% of the total settlement sum. If awarded, Harbour would not seek to enforce its contractual rights under the funding agreement.
4. A common fund order is where the Court orders that the funding commission is to be paid from the proceeds available for all participating group members, irrespective of whether they have signed up to a funding agreement with Harbour. Without a common fund order, the costs and funding commission would be payable from the proceeds available for participating group members who have signed a funding agreement. Participating group members who had not signed a funding agreement with Harbour would not be liable for any payment to Harbour.
5. Thus, there are two issues for me to consider: whether to make a common fund order; and whether to approve a funding commission in the amount of $81.54 million.
6. The rationale for common fund orders and the basis of the Court's power to make them were matters set out by the Court of Appeal in Botsman.[105] While there is some controversy in other jurisdictions about the power to make common fund orders, the present state of the law is that this Court clearly has power under s 33V(2) of the Act to do so. [106]
7. I consider that this is an appropriate case for a common fund order to be made. I do not think it fair or reasonable for the burden of the funding commission to fall only on those who signed up to Harbour's funding agreement, as would occur in the event that I decline to make a common fund order. Common fund orders operate to address a 'free rider' problem that might otherwise occur, by allowing all those who benefit from the outcome to share in the payment of the funding commission. After all, it is the funder which facilitated the bringing of the proceedings by paying the legal costs associated with running them. Those who stand to benefit from the settlement (being all participating group members) ought not be permitted to do so without bearing their share of the burden associated with bringing the proceedings (being the funding commission and legal costs). It is inequitable for unfunded participating group members to get the benefit without sharing in the costs.
8. In Botsman, the Court of Appeal referred to Money Max Int Pty Ltd v QBE Insurance Group Ltd (Money Max)[107] where the Full Court of the Federal Court identified a number of relevant but non-determinative factors for assessing whether a proposed funding commission rate should be approved. Money Max concerned an application for a funding commission early in the proceeding and in advance of any settlement having been reached, however, my view is that many of the principles are also relevant to the decision I have to make as to the funding commission at this late stage of the present proceedings. The principles elaborated by the Full Court in Money Max and referred to by the Court of Appeal in Botsman can be summarised as follows:[108]

(a) whether the funding commission rate had been agreed by sophisticated group members and the number of group members who had agreed;

(b) the information provided to group members as to the commission;

(c) a comparison of the proposed commission with commissions in other group proceedings and the broad parameters of the funding commission rates available in the market;

(d) the litigation risks of providing funding in the proceedings, to be assessed prospectively and avoiding hindsight bias;

(e) the quantum of adverse cost exposure that the funder assumed;

(f) the legal costs expended and to be expended, and the security for costs provided, by the funder;

(g) the amount of any settlement or judgment;

(h) any substantial objections made by group members in relation to any litigation funding charges; and

(i) the likely actual recovery for group members under any pre-existing funding arrangements.

1. Those factors which I consider relevant in these proceedings have been addressed in the below discussion.
2. The materials before the Court support a conclusion that the funding commission is fair and reasonable.[109] In particular, the evidence confirms the significant risks borne by Harbour. I am unable to go into a lot of the detail as it is confidential, but the material in the Confidential King Affidavit is compelling evidence as to the risks borne by Harbour, particularly at the time at which it agreed to fund the proceedings. This was long-running, hard-fought litigation in respect of a complex cause of action. Harbour incurred costs of around $35.2 million and those funds were progressively at risk for over six years, from when investigations began. There was by no means a guaranteed victory for the plaintiffs' camp should this matter have proceeded to trial and final judgment. This was also by no means an ordinary or 'cookie cutter' class action, as is clear from the complex interlocutory disputes involved. I note that the amount actually funded by Harbour to date has exceeded the amount it initially agreed to fund. Harbour's expected return from its funding of the proceedings was higher than the amount that has been achieved by the proposed settlement. I have had regard to the adverse costs exposure Harbour assumed, its significant expenditure to date and its payment of security for costs. I consider that the commission properly reflects the costs and risks assumed by Harbour. Harbour obtained after the event (ATE) insurance, but this covered only part of the adverse costs risks assumed, and Harbour is not seeking reimbursement of the costs of its insurance.[110]
3. Litigation funding is often important in providing access to justice, and I think it has been important here. There is no suggestion that the solicitors for the plaintiffs were prepared to run this case on a no-win-no-fee basis and the expenditure has been such that the case may not have been pursued without third-party funding. Simply put, without the involvement of Harbour, there may not have been any compensation available for group members at all.
4. I also note that group members were provided with clear information about the proposed commission, both in the funding information statement of May 2019 and in the Settlement Notice.
5. It is also relevant that a very high proportion of RGMs signed up to funding agreements with Harbour which entitle Harbour to a funding commission of 30% from their recovered amounts (in addition to the amount of Harbour's investment and ATE insurance costs).[111] The proposed funding commission matches that contractual rate. In the event that the funding commission is approved, Harbour waives its contractual rights to the commission under the funding agreements as well as those additional entitlements under the contracts. However, I acknowledge that registered group members who signed up were likely not in a position to negotiate different terms for those contracts and that there is likely a range of levels of sophistication among them, in terms of their knowledge of legal matters and business acumen. Nonetheless, those issues do not militate against approving the funding commission.
6. Harbour submits that there have been 'virtually no objections' to the quantum of the proposed funding commission. While there may not have been many express objections about the quantum or percentage proposed, I consider that statements in written objections to the effect that the settlement benefitted Maurice Blackburn and/or Harbour over group members amount to objections to the amount or percentage of the settlement directed to legal costs and/or the funding commission. Indeed, one objector stated expressly at the hearing that, in their view, the proposed funding commission was grossly unfair. However, I view these objections in the context of the discussion outlined above regarding the risks and significant expenditure to date. I do not agree that the proposed funding commission is grossly unfair.
7. What is more, if I were to refuse to make a common fund order or an order approving the funding commission, the burden of paying the funder would fall on those 98% of RGMs who signed up to funding agreements, as Harbour would then rely on its contractual rights. The free‑rider problem in this instance may be less significant as a result of the large proportion of registered group members who have signed up to funding agreements, but it is not non-existent.[112]
8. Because of the large number of RGMs who signed up to funding agreements, the differential between participating group members who signed up to funding agreements and those who did not is relatively small. Harbour submits that the fact that there would be an increase in the differential between participating group members who signed up to funding agreements and those who did not, based on the admission to the class of a number of UGMs, should not weigh against the funding commission. In the event, the number of UGMs to be admitted is relatively small, with such a small impact on this differential that there is no need to consider this submission further. However, even if many more UGMs had been granted leave, my view is that this change in the differential would not undermine the basis for the common fund order, either in terms of it being made or the quantum of commission ordered. There is no need to delve into counterfactuals to reach this view. It is simply the case that an increase in participating group members who have not signed up to funding agreements increases the free-rider problem. The rationale for the common fund order being made is even more apparent where the free-rider problem is bigger.
9. Lastly, I note that the funding commission is within the range of commissions approved by the courts in respect of other group proceedings, and within the range of commissions common in the litigation funding market at the relevant time.[113] While it is towards the higher end of such commissions, it still appears to me to be reasonable in the context of such complex litigation with a risk profile quite distinct from, for example, a shareholder class action.[114] It has been suggested in other cases that, where there is a very large settlement, there may need to be a lower funding commission rate to ensure proportionality of the amount of the commission to the risk assumed.[115] This is undoubtedly a large settlement, however, I do not consider that the funding commission rate should be lowered here, noting the significant risks assumed by the funder over such an extended period, and the monies expended by the funder, which in this case, appear to me to justify the commission sought.
10. Accordingly, I will make a settlement common fund order with the charges in favour of Harbour as proposed under the SDS, pursuant to s 33V(2) of the Act.

H.7 Payments to the plaintiffs and sample group members

1. The plaintiffs seek orders for payment of the following amounts from the settlement sum to:

(a) Mr Andrianakis in the amount of $80,000;

(b) Ms Salem, in her capacity as executor of the estate of Mr Salem, in the amount of $40,000; and

(c) each of the five sample group members in the amounts of $20,000.

1. These payments total $220,000 and represent 0.08% of the total settlement sum.
2. Each plaintiff and sample group member took steps in the proceeding including producing documents for discovery, preparing outlines of evidence, assisting in the formulation of assumptions for the expert accountant, making additional affidavits as required, and attending conferences with Maurice Blackburn and Counsel. In addition to these matters, Mr Andrianakis invested further time in relation to the mediation and settlement negotiations, and receiving communications from other group members and industry participants about the proceeding.
3. I consider that these payments should be made, in light of the work undertaken and time spent by those persons for the progress of the litigation and benefit of the group.[116] In particular, I observe that the sum to be paid to Mr Andrianakis is commensurate with his high‑level of involvement in the proceeding over many years, and I refer to the evidence of Mr Donelly in that regard. The quantum of the proposed payments is also within the range identified in empirical research conducted by Professor Vince Morabito of Monash Business School.[117]

1. The plaintiffs submit that it is necessary for appropriate individuals to be appointed to administer the scheme, and propose that Maurice Blackburn act in that role. The plaintiffs submit that, on the evidence, Maurice Blackburn would be an appropriate scheme administrator for the following reasons:

(a) Maurice Blackburn has experience in administering large and complex settlement administrations in class action proceedings. In his Open Affidavit, Mr Donelly deposes that Maurice Blackburn has administered approximately 65 settlement distributions. Of these, around nine were distributions of settlements approved in mass tort class action proceedings.

(b) It is proposed that the distribution would be managed by a dedicated settlement administration team within Maurice Blackburn. Mr Donelly deposes that Maurice Blackburn has well-established systems and procedures in place to perform the role of scheme administrator.

(c) That team has access to staff and expertise, including Maurice Blackburn staff with detailed knowledge of these proceedings, and can expand or contract in size as necessary to ensure the efficient and effective administration of the settlement.

1. I accept these submissions and will make orders appointing Maurice Blackburn as the settlement administrator.
2. I agree with the remarks made by Lee J in Lifeplan Australia Friendly Society Limited v S&P Global Inc (Formerly McGraw- Hill Financial, Inc) (A Company Incorporated in New York),[118] that the appointment of the plaintiffs' solicitors to administer a settlement should not be by default or amount to a fait accompli, particularly where the calculation of distributions is a simple matter of arithmetic, especially where the settlement is large and is to be distributed to a sizeable group of participants.
3. I also note that an objection to Maurice Blackburn being appointed as the settlement administrator was made at the hearing by Mr Webb, who argued that the work should be put to tender and carried out by more suitable and less expensive administrators.
4. It might be that another entity could administer the settlement efficiently and more cost-effectively, but that is just speculation and, in any event, is by no means certain. In my experience, the usual type of organisation proposed as an alternative scheme administrator is another law firm or an accounting firm, both of whom have similar charge-out rates to those of Maurice Blackburn. I appoint Maurice Blackburn in this instance because, on the evidence before me, it appears to me that this course will maximise efficiency and minimise further costs. Maurice Blackburn has detailed background and information as to the calculation methodologies to be used and as to these proceedings generally, as well as experience in administering complex and large settlements such as this one. I am also cognisant of the delay and costs that a tender process would involve, including inevitable handover costs.
5. The plaintiffs note in their written submissions that clause 16 of the SDS provides (inter alia) that the scheme administrator will provide reports on the settlement to the Court every six months, that the scheme administrator may refer any issues relating to the SDS to the Court, and the Court may vary or amend the terms of the SDS. I am satisfied that these processes will allow the Court to perform its supervisory and protective role effectively.

1. The plaintiffs' written submissions set out why the proposed settlements of the Stewart and Andree proceedings are subject to approval by this Court pursuant to s 33V of the Act, notwithstanding that they were respectively commenced in the Supreme Court of New South Wales and the Supreme Court of Queensland.
2. Section 33A of the Act provides that a group proceeding is a proceeding commenced under Part 4A of the Act. The Stewart and Andree proceedings were each transferred to this Court pursuant to the applicable cross-vesting legislation.[119]
3. The effect of the equivalent Victorian legislation is that as the transferee court, this Court is to deal with the proceeding as if the steps taken in the proceeding in the transferor court had been taken in the transferee court.[120] Thus the steps of commencing the Stewart and Andree proceedings are taken to have occurred in this Court such that they were commenced pursuant to Part 4A of the Act and therefore they are group proceedings for the purposes of s 33V of the Act, with any settlement being subject to approval by this Court.
4. I agree with these submissions. For the same reasons as given in respect of the Andrianakis and Salem proceedings, the settlement of the Stewart and Andree proceedings will be approved.

1. For the reasons set out above, I approve the proposed settlement in the amount of $271,800,000 as fair and reasonable pursuant to s 33V(1) of the Act. I consider the settlement to be in the interests of group members, and to be fair and reasonable as between the parties and as between group members. I also approve the deductions to be made from the settlement sum under s 33V(2) of the Act, for legal costs (fees, disbursements and uplift fees) in the amount of $38,698,628.81, funding commission in the amount of $81,540,000, and payments to the plaintiffs and sample group members totalling $220,000.
2. The orders to be made will include an order permitting the 140 UGMs listed by application number in Annexure A to be treated as registered group members for the purposes of administering the SDS. For privacy reasons, UGMs are referred to by application numbers, but their identities and contact details are known to the Court and to Maurice Blackburn. I will also direct Maurice Blackburn to inform UGMs of the outcome of their applications. Information should be relayed to UGMs by the most cost-effective means available.
3. I also approve the SDS and appoint Maurice Blackburn as the administrator of the SDS.
4. I direct Maurice Blackburn to prepare draft orders giving effect to these reasons, to be provided to my Chambers by no later than 4.00pm on 4 December 2024.

List of unregistered group members to be granted leave to participate in the settlement, with short reasons

List of invalid applications by unregistered group members

List of applications by unregistered group members that are not supported by evidence

UGM Applications containing only a statement of group membership (ie, Category 6 only)

UGM Applications categorised as a combination of Categories 6 and 9

UGM Applications which amount to a bare assertion that the UGM was not aware of the proceeding (ie, Category 4 only)

UGM Applications not supported by individual evidence

UGM Applications categorised as falling into a combination of Categories 4, 6 and 9 not individually reviewed by the judge

List of unsuccessful UGM Applications reviewed individually, with short reasons

Unregistered Group Members to be granted leave to participate in the settlement

The applicant had retired from the taxi industry in 2019 due to serious illness, for which they needed to undergo lengthy treatment. The applicant provided a sufficient explanation for not having registered (either initially or within the class closure deadline). I consider that unfair prejudice has been established.

The applicant provided a specific outline of why they were not aware of the class action or the class closure deadline, being that they had retired in March 2020, were not a member of any relevant organisation, and did not consume any media. I consider that unfair prejudice has been established.

This application contained a sufficiently specific explanation for why the applicant was not aware of the class action or the class closure deadline. They were not a member of any organisation, with no consumption of media. I consider that unfair prejudice has been established.

The applicant explained why they were not aware of the class action or the class closure deadline in a sufficiently specific way. The applicant left the taxi industry in 2021, was not on social media and had only sporadic consumption of media. From 2021 to 2024, they were employed as a FIFO worker, and they were not a member of any organisation, nor did they have contact with anyone in industry since they ceased taxi driving. I consider that unfair prejudice has been established.

The application included a sufficiently specific explanation for why the applicant was not aware of the proceeding. The applicant does not watch TV or read newspapers. I consider that they have provided a sufficient explanation for missing the deadline and unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant's evidence was that they suffered from serious medical conditions and underwent treatment, with this being sufficiently linked to why they were not aware of the proceeding and class closure deadline. The application was specific and unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant is a widow of driver who died in December 2022. The applicant did not know that the driver had not previously registered; their access to the driver's email and personal accounts was delayed and they could not complete registration process. The applicant provided a specific explanation and I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant's evidence was that they left the taxi industry in 2019 and had no awareness of the class action and class closure deadline, being a full‑time carer for elderly parents and a sibling living with a disability and on the NDIS. Unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant is a retired taxi driver and owner, living with a medical condition. The application provided sufficient reasons tied to their lack of awareness and failure to register within the deadline. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant provided a specific and sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline, tied to their specific characteristics and access to information and resources. The application establishes unfair prejudice.

The applicant provided a specific explanation for why they were not aware of the proceeding or class closure deadline. The applicant is 91 years' old, does not check emails, and finds it difficult to keep up with events. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant was living with a serious illness throughout 2023 and did not keep up with anything in this time. The applicant did not have access to a computer or email. They provided a sufficiently specific explanation for why they were not aware of the class action or class closure deadline. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The application included a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline, including in relation to their individual characteristics and vulnerabilities which I do not need to set out here in detail. Unfair prejudice has been established.

The application included a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline, including because the applicant was overseas at the time of the class closure registration window and struggled to register while overseas but mistakenly believed that he had registered at that time. Unfair prejudice has been established.

This application included a sufficient explanation for why the applicant had a mistaken belief as to registration. Unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant was not aware of the proceeding or class closure deadline, and provided a specific explanation in that regard. They retired from the industry in March 2020 to be a full-time carer for an ill spouse and had no interaction or very limited interaction with outside world, and no contact with industry participants or publications. Unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant was experiencing a serious medical condition during the registration window for the proceeding and was unaware of the proceeding in connection with this. They provided a specific explanation which is cogent and sufficient. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

This applicant's reason for missing the deadline for registration concerned their medical condition. They provided sufficient reasons and particularity for missing the class closure deadline. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant was not aware of class closure deadline and the proceeding, having left the hire car industry March 2020. In my view, this and the other reasons given constitute a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

This application included a sufficient and cogent explanation for the applicant's mistaken belief that they were already registered. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

This applicant was unaware of the proceeding and the class closure deadline. A specific explanation was provided, being that they retired from the industry in 2017 due to ill health, and have ongoing health issues. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The evidence provided by the applicant provides sufficient particulars for the Court to infer the basis for missing class closure deadline. Based on the evidence before me, I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant was unaware of the proceeding and class closure deadline, having retired from the industry in around 2021 and being in ill health since August 2022. There was a specific explanation provided and I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it warrants a grant of leave. They state that they did not have electronic communication or a phone and did not find out about the proceeding until family members showed them media coverage of the settlement. Unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant says that they were aware of the proceeding and attended a meeting in February 2019 to register to participate, but there were no hard copy forms left, and they were told that they would be contacted for registration. The applicant also has a medical condition. On the basis of the information before me, taken together, there is a sufficient explanation provided. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The evidence of this applicant is that they left the hire car industry in 2016, and completely distanced themselves from it. They have provided a sufficient explanation for why they were not aware of the proceeding or class closure deadline. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant was abroad in the period June to August 2019 and between June to September 2023, with limited access to internet and no reliable sources of information at that time. By the time they heard about the class closure deadline it had expired. I accept this evidence and it provides a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant has provided a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline, including that they were not aware of the proceeding or class closure deadline, having retired from the industry Jan 2022. Based on the information before me, I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The evidence of this applicant is that they were not aware of the proceeding or class closure deadline due to having retired from the industry 2017. They provide a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

I consider that unfair prejudice is established in respect of this applicant, who was not aware of the proceeding or class closure deadline. They group member retired from the industry in 2019 due to serious illness. They provide a sufficient explanation for missing class closure deadline.

The applicant was not aware of the class closure deadline or the proceeding, as they were overseas from 3 July 2023 to 28 October 2023. They provided a sufficient explanation given for missing class closure deadline. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

This applicant was not aware of the class closure deadline or the proceeding, as they were abroad from 6 June 2023 to 26 October 2023. A sufficient explanation is given for missing class closure deadline. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant was not aware of the class closure deadline or the proceeding. They provide a sufficient explanation for the failure to register; they were not in the industry at time, had family members experiencing illness and had caregiving responsibilities. It is sufficiently specific and tied to the lack of awareness. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

There is a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline connected to a deceased estate which does not require further elaboration. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

There is a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline provided, relating to the applicant's mistaken belief in registration and medical condition. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant says they were not aware of the class closure deadline or the proceeding. They had limited media consumption, no contacts in the taxi industry, they were not member of any organisation, lived with medical conditions, and experienced financial hardship. As outlined in the application and in conjunction, the reasons amount to a sufficient explanation. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant's evidence outlined significant caring responsibilities for family members in ill-health, which among other things, meant that they were not following media such as social media. As a result, they were not aware of the opportunity to register. The applicant has provided a sufficient explanation for why they did not register and I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant's evidence, which I accept, was that they filled in a registration form in 2019 and posted it to Maurice Blackburn. The plaintiffs' solicitors confirmed receipt of the form by phone a few days later. After the media announcement of the settlement, the applicant contacted MB who said they were not registered. While the applicant did not expressly refer to the class closure deadline, they believed they were registered by that deadline. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant's evidence provides a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline, including overseas travel, personal stressors and medial issues affecting their immediate family. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant has provided a sufficient explanation for missing the deadline for registration. They were not aware of the proceeding until close to the end of the registration period, however, they had health issues at that time and made attempts to register. They tried to register before 2 October 2023 and made numerous calls before then to the plaintiffs' solicitors and on 3 October 2023. Based on the information before me, in particular, in connection with their medical issues and action taken, I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant provided evidence as to his medical condition which supports a grant of leave. Sufficient explanation for missing class closure deadline has been provided. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant was recovering from significant health problems in the registration window and therefore missed the class closure deadline. There is a sufficient explanation provided. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant's reasons for missing the class closure deadline provide a sufficient explanation. The applicant's reasons include health concerns, lack of membership of relevant organisations, and financial and personal pressures. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant registered with Maurice Blackburn on 5 January 2019 for the taxi licence held in their own name. They had a mistaken belief that they were also registered for the licence in the name of the family trust. The evidence provides a sufficient explanation for that mistaken belief. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

This applicant explains that they have a low level of English comprehension and receive news from particular non-English radio sources and from their community. The applicant's personal circumstances and barriers to access to information provide a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline, as the explanation was set out in a fulsome way. Unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant's evidence provides sufficient particulars concerning how one corporate entity was registered, while inadvertently another was not. The applicant also provides sufficient explanation for the mistaken belief in respect of the unregistered entity. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant's evidence contains a sufficient explanation for why they did not register. They were no longer a plate owner in 2023 and did not register because they thought they were no longer eligible, as well as experiencing medical issues. The information provided is such that I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

While the applicant's corporate entity was registered, the individual mistakenly believed all taxis under their other company and in their own name would be covered by that registration, based on advice that they received at the time and on which they relied. Sufficient particulars have been provided and there is a sufficient basis for that mistaken belief. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant provides a sufficient explanation for their mistaken belief in registration, having relied on an acquaintance who told the applicant that they would register on behalf of the applicant, and the applicant relied on this, having provided the acquaintance with their personal and business information. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

This taxi licence holder sold their licence before the registration window and did not consume media which would have drawn the class action to their attention. They provide a sufficient explanation for not knowing of and missing class closure deadline. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant provides a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline, including concerning their personal characteristics and lack of access to information. I do not need to set out these matters in detail here. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

This application provides sufficient explanation for why the class closure deadline was missed by the applicant, including as a result of their personal characteristics, as outlined in their evidence. I do not need to set out these matters in detail here. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The application includes a detailed explanation for the applicant missing class closure deadline, including serious medical issues which they experienced alongside caring responsibilities for family with health issues, and having sold their taxi plate in 2020. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant's explanation for why they were not aware of the proceeding and class closure deadline is cogent and detailed, including detail as to their health and financial stressors and access to information. It is sufficient to warrant leave and unfair prejudice is established.

The application outlines the applicant's serious medical condition, advanced age and limited access to information and communications. The application provides a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant provides a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline, including caring responsibilities for multiple family members experiencing serious medical issues in the relevant registration period. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant's evidence confirmed serious medical issues during the period for registration and provides a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

This applicant provides a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline, they were registered by a family member and relied on correspondence received from the plaintiffs' solicitors which stated that they were registered. The family member subsequently withdrew the registration without informing the applicant and without the applicant's consent. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

This application concerns a deceased estate and sets out a sufficient explanation for the applicant missing the class closure deadline. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant's evidence is that they were not aware of class closure deadline due to medical issues they had at the time. Their explanation for missing the class closure deadline is sufficient. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant's evidence as to their personal characteristics and difficulties experienced in the registration period including medical issues, when viewed in combination and noting the detail provided, provides a sufficient explanation for a grant of leave. Unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant provides a sufficient explanation for missing class closure deadline, including as to their serious medical conditions, caring responsibilities and other personal circumstances, and time abroad. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant says they held a mistaken belief of registration as their spouse had registered previously for a licence held in their own name and they received correspondence which was addressed to both spouses, which they understood to be confirmation of having registered. I accept their evidence and consider it is a sufficient explanation for the mistaken belief. Unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant's explanation for missing the class closure deadline is that they were overseas in the relevant registration period and unable to present required documents for completion. Their evidence is sufficiently detailed and cogent. Unfair prejudice is established.

This application contains a cogent and sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline, concerning a deceased estate. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant provides a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline, as they were abroad from 12 July to 9 October 2023, in addition to experiencing medical issues. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant provides a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline. They were overseas from 14 July 2023 to 2 December 2023. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant outlines a cogent and sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline, including overseas travel and their personal circumstances including caring responsibilities, illness and disability. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant has a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline, based on their age, personal characteristics and lack of consumption of media. Taking all of the circumstances outlined in their evidence together, I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

I consider that this applicant has set out in sufficient detail the reasons why they were not aware of the class closure deadline, which include matters concerning their relocation interstate to Tasmania in 2021. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

This applicant has a cogent and sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline, including overseas travel and work and caring responsibilities during the registration window. They also outline active steps taken to attempt to register. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant provides a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline in connection with a bereavement and the impact of the loss on them. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The application provides a cogent and sufficient explanation for missing class closure deadline and I consider that unfair prejudice is established. The application concerns a deceased estate.

The applicant has a cogent and sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline, including that they were out of the industry by about 2017 or 2018. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant provides a sufficient explanation for their mistaken belief in registration, in connection with the registration of a business partner. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The application provides a cogent and sufficient explanation for the applicant missing the class closure deadline, concerning a deceased estate. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant has a cogent and sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline, having lived abroad since March 2021. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant has a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline, including that they were out of the industry by 2019. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The application contains a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline relating to a deceased estate. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The application contains a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline relating to the serious health issues of the licence owner at the time of registration being open. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant's reasons (being their age, illness, and being out of the industry by the time the class actions were commenced) provide a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The application sets out a sufficient explanation for the applicant missing the class closure deadline, including providing detail regarding their personal characteristics and circumstances, including their age and level of comprehension of English. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant provides a cogent and sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline, including experiencing a serious illness in 2023 at relevant times. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant provides a sufficient explanation for missing class closure deadline, relating to family illness and caring responsibilities. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant was not aware of the proceeding or class closure deadline, being out of the industry by 2017. They give a sufficiently detailed explanation for missing the class closure deadline. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant has a sufficient reason for their mistaken belief as to registration, as a son informed the applicant that they would register on the applicant's behalf but provided the son's details rather than the applicants. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant has a sufficient explanation for missing class closure deadline, being overseas in the relevant time for registration, elderly and not using technology. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant provides a detailed explanation for their failure to register, including lack of access and communication with the industry and no consumption of media. Unfair prejudice has been established.

The applicant is a licence holder and shareholder in a corporation that owns and operates taxis. They are elderly and have limited access to technology or involvement with the industry. The application discloses a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant dealt with significant medical issues affecting their children and had caring responsibilities and stressors as a result which provide a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

This applicant was incorrectly advised by a taxi base worker that they were ineligible as a lessee of a taxi licence, having made enquiries and taken steps to try to register. I find this to be a sufficient explanation for the failure to register. Unfair prejudice is established.

The application provides a sufficient explanation for the applicant missing the class closure deadline, relating to significant health issues. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

I accept the evidence of this applicant, who says that they had registered before the deadline and do not know why they are not recorded as registered. Based on the evidence before me, this is a sufficient reason for a mistaken belief and I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant explains in detail their lack of awareness and consequent failure to register, including their lack of involvement in the industry as a lessor of plates who does not consume media. Because of the detailed explanation given, unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant's time overseas at relevant times and caring responsibilities provide a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant was not aware of the class action and failed to register because of their lack of involvement in the industry as a lessor of plates who does not consume media. Because of the detailed explanation given, unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant's evidence is that they filled in a form with the plaintiffs' solicitors a long time ago. They provide a sufficient reason for their mistaken belief of having already registered. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant had a lack of awareness of the class closure deadline, as they left the industry in 2019. They give a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant has already registered as a licence owner, and provided evidence of that registration. They did not understand that their claim as a driver was separate and did not register in that capacity. This is a sufficient reason to grant leave to participate. The explanation for their mistaken belief is cogent and detailed. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

This applicant left the industry and did not follow information on developments in the industry, and therefore was not aware of the proceeding or class closure deadline. They set out a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant provides a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline, having left the industry and moved interstate to Tasmania in 2020. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant provides a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline, including in relation to their health issues, lack of information and participation in taxi industry associations and the nature of their work. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant gives a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline and having not heard about the deadline. They left the industry in 2020 and relocated to Pakistan in 2022 where they still reside today. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant has a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline, as the power of attorney for a licence holder who lives abroad, not having received information or correspondence concerning the proceeding or being involved in the industry, and having a family member with significant medical issues. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant says that they were not aware of the proceeding before the deadline because they had retired from industry and were overseas for most of the registration window. On the information before me, I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant gives a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline, concerning serious health issues. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The application provides sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline, concerning a deceased estate. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant outlines a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline, including their personal characteristics, such as age and English language comprehension and difficulties understanding the relevant information. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant provides a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline, concerning the death of a family member who looked after the applicant's financial affairs including their taxi licence and lack of any information regarding the class action. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant's full-time caring responsibilities for a family member with health challenges is set out in detail and it provides sufficient explanation for why they were not aware of the proceeding and deadline, and therefore missed the class closure deadline. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant outlines family health issues and lack of information in sufficient detail to constitute a sufficient explanation for why they missed the class closure deadline. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant was not aware of the proceeding or class closure deadline, as they had exited taxi industry by around 2017. They provide a sufficient explanation for missing class closure deadline, supported by a detailed affidavit. Unjust prejudice is established.

The applicant missed the class closure deadline because they had been told by other drivers that only operators could join the case. Their evidence provides a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant was not aware of the proceeding or class closure deadline, as they had exited the taxi industry by around 2017. They give a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline. Unjust prejudice is established.

The applicant made an attempt to register; they include a sufficient and cogent explanation for missing the deadline for registration. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant's evidence is that they missed the class closure deadline due to their spouse's illness and having caregiving obligations. I consider that this is a sufficient explanation, albeit not detailed. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant was not aware of the proceeding or class closure deadline, they had moved interstate to South Australia by January 2021. They give a sufficient explanation for missing class closure deadline. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant was not aware of the proceeding or class closure deadline, they had moved interstate to Tasmania in 2019. They give a sufficient explanation for missing class closure deadline. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant provides a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline, including lack of access to correspondence, health and financial difficulties, and leaving the industry in 2020. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The application provides a sufficient explanation for the applicant having missed the class closure deadline and for their lack of awareness. They relocated to Hong Kong in 2017 and left the industry, and have only made intermittent visits to Australia since that time. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The application provides a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline and not knowing about the registration deadline. This applicant has lived in Hong Kong since 2017 and has made on intermittent visits to Australia since. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

This applicant exited the industry in July 2019, moved abroad to Pakistan in 2020, and continues to reside there. I consider they have given a sufficient explanation for their lack of awareness and missing the class closure deadline. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant was not aware of the proceeding or class closure deadline, as they had exited taxi industry in around 2016. Their affidavit evidence and submission provides a sufficiently detailed explanation for missing the class closure deadline and lack of awareness of that deadline or the proceeding. Unjust prejudice is established.

The applicant moved abroad to Pakistan in March 2022. They evidence provides a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant details in their evidence why they did not know about the deadline or proceeding, giving a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline, including in respect of their consumption of media, comprehension of English and other personal characteristics. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The medical reasons set out in the evidence of this applicant provide a sufficient explanation for their lack of knowledge of the proceeding or class closure deadline. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant was overseas at relevant times caring for a relative with health issues, and without adequate internet access. This is a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant was not aware of the proceeding or class closure deadline, as they had exited the industry by 2019. They give a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant provides a sufficient explanation for their mistaken belief in registration, having registered with Maurice Blackburn in respect of another proceeding and misunderstanding the effect of that registration. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

I consider that unfair prejudice is established by this application. The applicant provides a sufficient explanation for their mistaken belief in registration, having registered with Maurice Blackburn in respect of another proceeding and misunderstanding the effect of that registration.

This application details how the applicant was not aware of the proceeding or deadline because of her personal characteristics, including her age and English comprehension level, and her health concerns. It sets out a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline, and steps taken to attempt to register when made aware of the proceeding. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The application gives a sufficient explanation for the applicant missing the class closure deadline due to lack of awareness, and I consider that unfair prejudice is established. The explanation concerns the personal characteristics of the applicant, including their age and English comprehension level, their lack of consumption of media and use of technology, and a mistaken belief that they may already be registered due to having provided money to other taxi drivers on one occasion, as what the applicant understood to be a fee to join the proceeding.

The applicant's evidence regarding their significant medical history provides a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant exited the industry in 2018 and does not have access to email, internet or social media. The applicant contacted Maurice Blackburn on three occasions prior to the registration deadline and was informed each time by a receptionist that his information was noted down and someone would contact him. As the receptionist had taken down all the applicant's details, they believed that they were, in fact registered. They outline a sufficient explanation for their mistaken belief in registration. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant's evidence outlines a lack of knowledge of the proceeding, due to the fact that they do not consume newspapers, radio or taxi magazines. The evidence sets out a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant was overseas from 2020 to June 2024, and provides a sufficient explanation for not knowing about the deadline and missing the class closure deadline because of being abroad.

The applicant had a lack of knowledge of the proceeding, with no consumption of newspapers, radio or taxi magazines. They have set out a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant's evidence is that they had a lack of knowledge of the proceeding, as they did not consume newspapers, radio or taxi magazines. They provide a sufficient explanation for missing class closure deadline. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant details their lack of knowledge of the proceeding, as they did not consume newspapers or taxi magazines. They give a sufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

The applicant retired from the taxi industry 2020 and did not have any further involvement in the industry or awareness of developments in the industry. In their application, they give a sufficient reason for missing the class closure deadline. I consider that unfair prejudice is established.

Invalid applications by Unregistered Group Members

Applications by Unregistered Group Members that are not supported by evidence

Applications which contain only a statement of group membership (Category 6 only)

Applications which have been categorised as a combination of Categories 6 and 9

Applications which amount to a bare assertion that the Unregistered Group Members

were not aware of the proceeding (Category 4 only)

Applications by Unregistered Group Members which were not supported by individual evidence

Applications which have been categorised as falling into a combination of Categories 4, 6 and 9

Unsuccessful applications reviewed individually with reasons

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. I consider that the application does not establish unfair prejudice or a basis for leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The statement that the applicant was unaware due to lack of communications is not sufficiently specific and does not amount to unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. I consider that the application does not establish unfair prejudice or a basis for leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as the applicant merely states that they were aware of the proceeding but assumed all were automatically eligible to participate. They have not established unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. This application was one of several which asserted that the applicant was a registered group member, however, the applicant is not recorded as a registered group member by Maurice Blackburn. It appears that the applicant has confused providing their details on the UGM portal with registering. The application does not otherwise identify any basis for leave or establish unfair prejudice and I decline to grant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. This application was one of several which asserted that the applicant was a registered group member, however, the applicant is not recorded as a registered group member by Maurice Blackburn. It appears that the applicant has confused providing their details on the UGM portal with registering. The application does not otherwise identify any basis for leave or establish unfair prejudice and I decline to grant leave.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not contain an explanation for missing the class closure deadline and there is no link between the medical issues raised and the deadline being missed. The application does not merit a grant of leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. This application was one of several which asserted that the applicant was a registered group member, however, the applicant is not recorded as a registered group member by Maurice Blackburn. It appears that the applicant has confused providing their details on the UGM portal with registering. The application does not otherwise identify any basis for leave or establish unfair prejudice and I decline to grant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states that they were not aware of the class action at the time of the deadline for registration, but there is no specificity. No unfair prejudice is established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. This application was one of several which asserted that the applicant was a registered group member, however, the applicant is not recorded as a registered group member by Maurice Blackburn. It appears that the applicant has confused providing their details on the UGM portal with registering. The application does not otherwise identify any basis for leave or establish unfair prejudice and I decline to grant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states that they were not aware of the class action at the time of the deadline for registration, but there is no specificity. No unfair prejudice is established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. This application was one of several which asserted that the applicant was a registered group member, however, the applicant is not recorded as a registered group member by Maurice Blackburn. It appears that the applicant has confused providing their details on the UGM portal with registering. The application does not otherwise identify any basis for leave or establish unfair prejudice and I decline to grant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. They state 'I don't know how could be I was sick or may be overseas for family reasons.' The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave, as it does not contain sufficient specificity regarding missing the class closure deadline.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. This application was one of several which asserted that the applicant was a registered group member, however, the applicant is not recorded as a registered group member by Maurice Blackburn. It appears that the applicant has confused providing their details on the UGM portal with registering. The application does not otherwise identify any basis for leave or establish unfair prejudice and I decline to grant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The applicant refers to some detail in respect of their lack of communications in respect of the deadline, for example, not having received that information from their depot or 13Cabs, however, the application still does not meet the threshold for unfair prejudice. The applicant was aware of the proceeding and took no active steps.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. It lacks specificity and does not amount to unfair prejudice. The application also raises an objection regarding the adequacy of notification, and I have taken this objection into account along with all of the other objections before the Court.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application raises reasons for lack of awareness which were common among several applications of working in a suburban part of Sydney where there are few other drivers. However, this is not sufficient for a grant of leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. This application was one of several which asserted that the applicant was a registered group member, however, the applicant is not recorded as a registered group member by Maurice Blackburn. It appears that the applicant has confused providing their details on the UGM portal with registering. The application does not otherwise identify any basis for leave or establish unfair prejudice and I decline to grant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The applicant says 'I did not receive any notice, communication, or correspondence regarding the

class action settlement, either by mail, email, or any other means.' However, there was no requirement for personal notification, and without more, I do not consider that this amounts to unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. It does not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for leave to be granted.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant refers to family illness and being unaware of the proceeding but there is no link between the two and no particulars. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. This application was one of several which asserted that the applicant was a registered group member, however, the applicant is not recorded as a registered group member by Maurice Blackburn. It appears that the applicant has confused providing their details on the UGM portal with registering. It does not otherwise disclose a reason for leave to be granted.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is insufficient specificity and, as the applicant was an active operator and driver, one would expect them to have knowledge of the proceeding. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually, it being one which was identified by the Contradictor as including a bare statement that the applicant was not aware of the proceedings. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is no reason given for missing the deadline and no unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. This application was one of several which asserted that the applicant was a registered group member, however, the applicant is not recorded as registered by Maurice Blackburn. It appears that the applicant has confused providing their details on the UGM portal with registering. It does not otherwise disclose a reason for leave to be granted.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application lacks sufficient specificity in explaining why the applicant did not register by the deadline and why they ought to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The statement that the applicant left the industry in December 2022 is not tied to their lack of awareness; the explanation is very sparse with insufficient particulars provided.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually, it being one which was identified by the Contradictor as including a bare statement that the applicant was not aware of the proceedings. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is no reason given for missing the deadline and no unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The applicant includes a letter outlining the financial and generalised health impacts of the entry of UberX into the market, expressed as being on behalf of the whole group, and includes a statement of unawareness. This is an inadequate reason for this applicant to be granted leave.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states they were not aware of the class action at the time of the deadline but they are a full-time driver and there is no specificity regarding their lack of knowledge. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states they were not aware of the class action at the time of the deadline. The application has no specificity. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. There is no explanation for missing the deadline, and the reference to having left the industry in 2019 is not tied to the reason they were not aware.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The applicant refers to working in suburban Sydney where there are not many other drivers and as a result did not receive the information in time to register, however, this is not sufficient to establish unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states they were not aware of the class action at the time of the deadline. The application has no specificity. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states they were not aware of the class action at the time of the deadline. The application has no specificity. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The applicant says they misunderstood that proceeding was just for people who own taxi plates, and they were just a driver. There is no stated basis for this belief or evidence of enquiries made; there is no unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. It does not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for leave to be granted.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The applicant says they left the industry in around 2019 but they do not tie this to their lack of awareness. The explanation for failing to register is insufficient. They have not established unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states they were not aware of the class action at the time of the deadline. The application has no specificity. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The application contains a bare statement of lack of awareness of the proceeding but insufficient explanation for missing the class closure deadline. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states they were not aware of the class action at the time of the deadline. The application has no specificity. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states that they have successfully registered, but this is not correct as Maurice Blackburn have not identified them as a registered group member. It appears that the applicant has confused providing their details on the UGM portal with registering. The application does not otherwise provide a reason for leave to be granted.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states: '[u]nfortunately, I was unaware of the class action lawsuit when it was necessary to sign up, as I was overseas during the relevant sign up period'. However, there is no further detail or particulars, such that it is not a sufficient explanation for the failure to register. They have not established unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states they were not aware of the class action at the time of the deadline. The application has no specificity. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states that they have successfully registered, but this is not correct as Maurice Blackburn have not identified them as a registered group member. It appears that the applicant has confused providing their details on the UGM portal with registering. The application does not otherwise provide a reason for leave to be granted.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states they were not aware of the class action and the class closure deadline. The application has no specificity. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. While the evidence is from Hyderabad there is nothing to show that the applicant was overseas at the time of the registration window. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states that they have successfully registered, but this is not correct as Maurice Blackburn have not identified them as a registered group member. It appears that the applicant has confused providing their details on the UGM portal with registering. The application does not otherwise provide a reason for leave to be granted.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states that they have successfully registered, but this is not correct as Maurice Blackburn have not identified them as a registered group member. It appears that the applicant has confused providing their details on the UGM portal with registering. The application does not otherwise provide a reason for leave to be granted.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states that they have successfully registered, but this is not correct as Maurice Blackburn have not identified them as a registered group member. It appears that the applicant has confused providing their details on the UGM portal with registering. The application does not otherwise provide a reason for leave to be granted.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states they were not aware of the class action and the class closure deadline. The application has no specificity. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states they were not aware of the class action and the class closure deadline. The application has no specificity. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is no link between missing the class closure deadline and the medical issues referenced, and I do not consider that the reasons provided are such as to merit leave. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states they were not aware of the class action and the class closure deadline. The application has no specificity. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states that they have successfully registered, but this is not correct as Maurice Blackburn have not identified them as a registered group member. It appears that the applicant has confused providing their details on the UGM portal with registering. The application does not otherwise provide a reason for leave to be granted.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave, as there is no specificity. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. This application asserts that the applicant was unaware due to working in a suburb, which is not an adequate explanation for not registering; there is no unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application contains a statement that 'I did not receive any notice, communication, or correspondence regarding the class action settlement, either by mail, email, or any other means'. I do not consider this to be sufficient for leave. They have not established unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually. There is no reason given for the applicant missing the class closure deadline and there is nothing mentioned which explains why it has been categorised as Category 8. The application does not merit a grant of leave. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states they were not aware of the class action and the class closure deadline. The application has no specificity. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Nothing in the application amounts to unfair prejudice such as to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant says they were not registered because they were overseas in the period 2019 to 2022 and not able to register on the Maurice Blackburn website, although they had attempted to do so. The applicant was not specific as to dates and I consider their explanation as to why they did not register by the deadline in 2023 to be insufficient. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant's explanation of why they held a mistaken belief as to registration is not cogent or sufficient. There is no unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. They have not established unfair prejudice and, what is more, their application is not really evidence as it is a signed letter with the word 'affidavit' at the top.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. There is insufficient specificity and no unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states they were not aware of the proceeding or deadline but the explanation for missing the deadline is not sufficient. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is no link between missing the class closure deadline and medical issues referenced. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The applicant's reference to being self-employed is not sufficient. There is no unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. There is insufficient specificity and no unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. While the applicant states specifically those persons or entities who did not provide notice of the Class Closure Deadline or proceeding, they do not provide any particulars with respect to why they were not otherwise aware of the proceeding outside of individual notice (which is not required under Part 4A). They have not established unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and concluded that the application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant was not aware of the deadline for class closure but does not provide sufficient specificity as to the reasons that they missed the deadline. For example, they say they did not receive a notice from a named organisation, but that organisation was not one which was included in the Class Closure Orders. There is no unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant notes lack of awareness and communication as the reason for missing the deadline without any further detail. They have not established unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant is a long-term driver who states they were not aware of the proceeding or deadline but without further specificity. They have not established unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states they were not aware of the class action and the class closure deadline. The application has no specificity. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states they were not aware of the deadline but is not sufficiently specific as to the reasons for missing it. They refer to medical issues in some detail but there is an insufficient link between those issues and the registration period as to show why the issues led to the deadline being missed. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is no link between missing the class closure deadline and medical issues referenced. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant's evidence does not draw a sufficient link between medical issues they experienced and the registration period. They have not established unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The applicant's evidence is more than a bare statement of lack of knowledge, but they do not provide a sufficient explanation for why they did not register. They have not established unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Their reason for being unaware of was that they were a single parent, working to support their family. The application does not provide overall an adequate basis for the failure to register and unfair prejudice is not established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The explanation for missing the class closure deadline is insufficient. No unfair prejudice is established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states they were not aware of the class action and the class closure deadline. The application has no specificity. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is no link between missing the class closure deadline and medical issues referenced. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states they were unaware because of having children and being busy with them with no chance to get information from other sources. This is not an adequate explanation for the failure to register in my view and does not establish unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. An insufficient explanation for the mistaken belief in registration is given. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. This application was identified by the Contradictor as falling into Categories 4, 6 and 9, but that the applicant makes a bare assertion of being unaware of the proceeding. There is no unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states they were unaware because of having children and being busy with them and work. While more than a bare statement, it is still insufficient as a reason for their failure to register and does not establish unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states they were not aware of the class action and the class closure deadline. The application has no specificity. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is a bare assertion of lack of knowledge of the proceeding without sufficient explanation for why the deadline was missed. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually. The applicant states that they did not check communications due to emotional stress and anxiety caused by the operation of Uber in the market. Expressed at this level of generality, this application does not merit a grant of leave, in my view. The explanation for missing the deadline is insufficient. No unfair prejudice is established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The medical issues cited are not outlined with any particularity and, as such, do not provide sufficient reason for missing the deadline. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and concluded that the application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant contacted Maurice Blackburn during the registration period but retracted their attempt at registration due to complexity of the documents and not being able to afford legal advice. I think that this is an insufficient reason for not registering, as a conscious decision was made not to register by the deadline. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave; the application refers to registering an interest in another proceeding in 2017 conducted by another law firm which is an insufficient reason for their failure to register in this proceeding. They have not established unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The applicant asserts they mistakenly believed that they were not eligible due to being outside of Melbourne and say that the proceeding was not widely advertised. There is no evidence that they made any enquiries about eligibility. They have not established unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Assertions that they assumed they would automatically be part of the class is not an adequate explanation for failing to register. They have not established unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The applicant says they left the taxi industry in 2021 to become patient transport officer in NSW Health. They do not provide an adequate explanation for the failure to register and they have not established unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant says they were not adequately informed of recent developments. The applicant says that they may have missed emails or phone calls from Maurice Blackburn but is cautious responding to unknown sources. They do not state whether they were aware of the class action or registration deadline. The explanation for missing the deadline is not cogent or sufficient. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is no link between missing the class closure deadline and medical issues referenced. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant was aware of the class action, received information about it, but found the information confusing and did not understand the urgency or importance of registering. It does not contain a sufficient or cogent explanation as to why they did not register. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave, as there is no explanation for missing the deadline. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. It does not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register and confirms that they were aware of the proceeding.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states they were not aware of the class closure deadline and otherwise does not provide any explanation. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The applicant left the industry in 2016 and states they were no longer receiving information about the industry. However, the exhibits to the affidavit include correspondence from the WA Department of Transport in 2018 regarding that state's voluntary taxi plate buyback payment scheme and there is evidence of payments made after that time. Further, the applicant does not confirm why, for example, they were not able to receive notice through newspaper advertisements. The application is inadequate. They have not established unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The applicant says they left industry in 2019 to join Uber and moved home, and their postal address on record was not updated and nothing was forwarded to them. This is not sufficient to establish unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. They do not provide a sufficiently particularised explanation for the failure to register.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states they were not aware of the class action and the class closure deadline. The application has no specificity. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The applicant says they could not register because they didn't have enough information. This is not a sufficiently particularised explanation for the failure to register.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave, as the applicant states they were not aware of the deadline, without any other explanation. They do not clarify if they knew about the proceeding. They have not established unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and concluded that the application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states they were not aware of the deadline and does not provide any further explanation for the failure to register. They do not stated whether they were aware of the proceeding. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave; the applicant states they did not know about the proceeding and so did not register to participate. They refer to challenges they are experiencing including health issues, but those are not linked to their failure to register or lack of awareness. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant was aware of the class action but did not understand the process. The evidence is unclear and provides an insufficient explanation of why the deadline was missed. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. They say they had a mistaken belief as to automatic registration, which is an inadequate explanation for the failure to register. There is insufficient specificity. They have not established unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is no link between missing the class closure deadline and medical issues referenced. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant says they were overseas at the last date of the registration period but the evidence is not sufficiently detailed or specific. They do not say that they were not aware of the deadline or when they went abroad. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. They say they had a mistaken belief as to automatic registration, which is an inadequate explanation for the failure to register. There is insufficient specificity. They have not established unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states they were not aware of the deadline and did not receive communication about it, but provides an insufficient explanation of the failure to register and have not established unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave; the applicant makes a bare statement of not getting information about registration. They give an insufficient explanation for missing the deadline. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The lack of awareness of this applicant is linked to being on night shift, however, I do not consider this to be a sufficient explanation for their failure to register. They have not established unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. They say they had a mistaken belief as to automatic registration, which is an inadequate explanation for the failure to register. There is insufficient specificity. They have not established unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is no link between missing the class closure deadline and medical issues referenced. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The applicant is a trust beneficiary who assumed they were automatically registered. The trust aspect is not an explanation here, which is really a mistaken belief as to automatic registration. This is not adequate.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The explanation for missing the class closure deadline is insufficient. No unfair prejudice is established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is a bare statement that the applicant was not aware of the proceeding or deadline. Insufficient explanation provided. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant made the decision not to register due to disillusionment, but states that they changed their mind in April 2024. This is not a sufficient basis to give leave to participate. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The application contains a bare statement of lack of awareness and limited English proficiency, however, the application demonstrates a sufficient level of proficiency. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The applicant says they were a passive licence owner which was inherited from a parent, that they had no contact with others in industry, no social media, and no emails or correspondence with the taxi industry. However, they also say that they joined in a fighting fund established by Black & White Cabs to fund proceedings to try and stop Uber, which were unsuccessful. This is, in my view, contradictory with the notion that they had no contact with the industry. I do not consider the explanation adequate. They have not established unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant found information as to the class action confusing and says that there was a lack of communication that meant they did not know the importance of registering. They do not provide a sufficient basis for leave. They have not established unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. They have not established unfair prejudice. They left the industry prior to 2018 to move abroad and returned in 2018 without updating their address with the TSC, but this is not linked at all to the failure to register, as the TSC was not one of the organisations which was to forward the Opt Out and Closure Notice pursuant to the Class Closure Orders, and the applicant was not abroad when the registration deadline was advertised.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The applicant says they had an insufficient understanding of the process, and assumed they would be automatically included. The application does not merit a grant of leave, as this is not a sufficient basis for leave to be granted. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant attributes their lack of awareness to having moved house. I do not consider this to be a sufficient explanation for missing the deadline, especially given their active participation in the industry and ownership of several taxis. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. It is not clear when the applicant left the taxi industry, and the application does not contain a sufficient explanation for the failure to register. The applicant states that they were not aware of the class action or registration deadline. They have not established unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The application concerns a deceased estate, however, the family had been active in dealing with the taxi licence prior to the deceased's death and it is unclear why the estate would not have registered for the class action. No sufficient reason is given and no unfair prejudice is established

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave, as there is no explanation for missing the deadline. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. An insufficient explanation is given for missing the deadline and no unfair prejudice is established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. Despite the personal characteristics of the applicants, being elderly and investors in licences, there is no adequate reason for their failure to register. They have not established unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. They have not established unfair prejudice, as this is a bare assertion of being unaware of the proceeding, insufficient to warrant leave.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is no link between missing the class closure deadline and medical issues referenced. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is a bare statement of lack of awareness of the class closure deadline without sufficient explanation for why the deadline was missed. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states they were not aware of the proceeding or deadline but the explanation for missing the deadline is not sufficient. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is no link between missing the class closure deadline and medical issues referenced. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states they did not have contact within the industry or media platforms, but this is, in my view, an inadequate explanation for the failure to register. For example, the applicant does not state they do not consume newspapers where they might have had the opportunity to learn of the proceeding. They have not established unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The explanation for missing the class closure deadline is insufficient. No unfair prejudice is established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The applicant says they missed the opportunity to register because of the availability of information. This is an insufficient explanation and the application does not merit a grant of leave. No unfair prejudice is established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and found the explanation for missing the deadline to be inconsistent and not cogent. The application does not merit a grant of leave. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. An insufficient explanation is given for missing the deadline and there are some inconsistencies within the explanation. No unfair prejudice is established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The explanation for missing the class closure deadline is insufficient. No unfair prejudice is established.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states they were not aware of the proceeding or deadline but the explanation for missing the deadline is not sufficient. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states they were not aware of the class closure deadline and otherwise does not provide sufficient reason for not registering. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states they were not aware of the proceeding or deadline but the explanation for missing the deadline is not sufficient. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states they were not aware of the proceeding or deadline but the explanation for missing the deadline is not sufficient. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant's lack of awareness is not sufficiently explained with any specificity. There is no unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually . The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states they were not aware of the class closure deadline and otherwise does not provide sufficient reason for not registering. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is a bare statement of lack of awareness of the proceeding without sufficient explanation for why the deadline was missed. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The Contradictor reviewed this application and noted that it falls within Categories 4, 6 and 9, but that the reference to lack of awareness is a bare assertion. Having reviewed the application, I agree and do not consider that it establishes unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The explanation for missing the class closure deadline is insufficient. No unfair prejudice is established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The applicant says they are a regional worker who did not see the media coverage, but this is not an adequate explanation for the failure to register in my view. They have not established unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The explanation for missing the class closure deadline is insufficient as it lacks any particularity, including about dates. There is no link between the medical issues raised and the missed deadline. No unfair prejudice is established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is a bare statement of lack of awareness of the proceeding and deadline without sufficient explanation for why the deadline was missed. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is a bare statement of lack of awareness of the class closure deadline without sufficient explanation for why the deadline was missed. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is no link between missing the class closure deadline and medical issues referenced. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The explanation for missing the class closure deadline is insufficient. No unfair prejudice is established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is a bare statement of lack of awareness of the class closure deadline without sufficient explanation for why the deadline was missed. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant gives internally inconsistent explanations for missing the deadline. The reasons for a grant of leave are not cogent or sufficient. There is no unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states they were not aware of the class closure deadline and otherwise does not provide sufficient explanation. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states they were not aware of the class action or the deadline. The overseas travel noted in the application does not provide a sufficient basis for leave as it was not at the time of the registration period. No unfair prejudice is established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is a bare statement of lack of awareness of the class closure deadline without sufficient explanation for why the deadline was missed. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is a bare statement of lack of awareness of the class closure deadline without sufficient explanation for why the deadline was missed. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

The name of the applicant recorded in the Maurice Blackburn Registers is incorrect.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant says they were uninformed of the progress of the class action and therefore missed the deadline. They speculate that this may be because they do not answer calls or look at emails from unknown senders. This is an insufficient explanation. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is a bare statement of lack of awareness of the proceeding and deadline without sufficient explanation for why the deadline was missed. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant was not aware of the proceeding or deadline and says they did not receive any documentation, referring to residing in NSW. This is insufficient. They have not established unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is a bare statement of lack of awareness of the class closure deadline without sufficient explanation for why the deadline was missed. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states they were informed by other drivers that they were not eligible as they were not an operator, but they did not make any enquiries of their own. This is not sufficient to establish unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a mistaken belief that they were registered but provides insufficient particulars. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant says they were locked out of their emails with no detail as to when they could not see emails or how they were prevented from registering by the deadline as a result. They have not established unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is no link between missing the class closure deadline and medical issues referenced. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. They have not established unfair prejudice. They left the industry in 2020 but this is not linked at all to the failure to register.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. It does not contain a sufficient explanation for the failure to register and unfair prejudice is not established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. They held a mistaken belief they were not eligible as they were outside Victoria but this is not a basis for leave, as the source or basis for that mistaken belief has not been specified. They have not established unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states that in around September 2023 he discussed participating in the proceeding with his wife but in October 2023 his wife told him they had missed the deadline. This is not a sufficient explanation for failing to register on time. Unfair prejudice is not established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is no link between medical issues raised and missing the deadline, and there is no sufficient explanation. No unfair prejudice is established.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The application contains an insufficient explanation for missing the deadline and a lack of specificity. No unfair prejudice established

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. They held a mistaken belief that they were ineligible as they thought the group was only owners of taxi number plates, but they do not outline any enquiries made. The source or basis for that mistaken belief has not been specified. They have not established unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is no link between missing the class closure deadline and medical issues referenced. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is a bare statement of lack of awareness of the class closure deadline without sufficient explanation for why the deadline was missed. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states they were overseas on 2 October 2023, without any further detail as to the period of travel. The explanation is insufficient. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant knew of the proceeding in September 2023 and did not contact Maurice Blackburn until late October 2023. There is an insufficient basis for missing the deadline. They have not established unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The explanation for missing the class closure deadline is insufficient. No unfair prejudice is established.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is no link between missing the class closure deadline and medical issues referenced. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave; it does not link medical issues that are raised with the deadline that was missed. The explanation is not sufficient. They have not established unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is a bare statement of lack of awareness of the proceeding and deadline without sufficient explanation for why the deadline was missed. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant refers to travel abroad, but not at the time of the proceeding being commenced or the registration period. Their reason for missing the deadline is not sufficient. They have not established unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave, as it did not disclose a sufficiently specific reason for the failure to register or demonstrate unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The applicant was, in fact, sent an email about the proceeding in November 2018 but states that they missed it. I do not think this amounts to unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is a bare statement of lack of awareness of the class closure deadline without sufficient explanation for why the deadline was missed. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. While the applicant refers to personal pressures and having left the industry in early 2020, there is no express explanation for why the applicant missed the deadline for registration. In those circumstances, I decline to grant leave as I do not consider that they have established unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The explanation for missing the class closure deadline is insufficient. No unfair prejudice is established.

I reviewed this application individually and have concluded that the application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant knew of the deadline for registration from messages on WhatsApp from fellow drivers, and knew a week before the expiry of the deadline that there was a week left, but did not follow this up. The applicant refers to a spouse with health issues during this period, whom they were supporting, however, there is insufficient explanation or particulars linking that circumstances with their failure to register before the deadline. On that basis, I consider that unfair prejudice has not been established.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is a bare statement of lack of awareness of the proceeding without sufficient explanation for why the deadline was missed. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave, as there is no explanation for missing the deadline. No unfair prejudice established.

The applicant states that they knew about the class action but not of the requirement for registration. They provide an insufficient explanation for the failure to register. They have not established unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant states they were not aware of the proceeding or deadline but the explanation for missing the deadline is not sufficient. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The applicant thought that 13Cabs would register for them but did not make any enquiries to confirm this. This is an inadequate explanation for the failure to register. No unfair prejudice is established.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant says they tried to participate in other class actions in the past and was unsure if they were registered. This is insufficient and there is no unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a mistaken belief that they were registered without sufficient particulars. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is a bare statement of lack of awareness of the proceeding and deadline without sufficient explanation for why the deadline was missed. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually . The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a lack of knowledge of the class action but there is an insufficient explanation for missing the registration deadline. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is a bare statement of lack of awareness of the class closure deadline without sufficient explanation for why the deadline was missed. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is a bare statement of lack of awareness of the proceeding and deadline without sufficient explanation for why the deadline was missed. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is a bare statement of lack of awareness of the proceeding without sufficient explanation for why the deadline was missed. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is a bare statement of lack of awareness of the proceeding and deadline without sufficient explanation for why the deadline was missed. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is a bare statement of lack of awareness of the proceeding and deadline without sufficient explanation for why the deadline was missed. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The explanation for missing the class closure deadline is insufficient. No unfair prejudice is established.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is a bare statement of lack of awareness of the proceeding and deadline without sufficient explanation for why the deadline was missed. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims that they did not register for fear of the information being collected for a fraudulent purpose. This is an insufficient explanation for missing the deadline. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims that they did not register for fear of the information being collected for a fraudulent purpose. This is an insufficient explanation for missing the deadline. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The applicant claims a mistaken belief that they were registered without sufficient particulars. No unfair prejudice established.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. The explanation for missing the class closure deadline is insufficient. No unfair prejudice is established. Note that the name recorded in the Maurice Blackburn Registers is incorrect.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. They refer to a mistaken belief of not being eligible due to not being both an owner and operator, but they do not outline any enquiries made about eligibility or any particulars such as the source or basis for that mistaken belief. They have not established unfair prejudice.

I reviewed this application individually and determined that it did not merit a grant of leave. The application pertains to an executor of a deceased estate, but no explanation is provided for the failure to register and no unfair prejudice is established.

I reviewed this application individually. The application does not merit a grant of leave. There is a bare statement of lack of awareness of the proceeding and deadline without sufficient explanation for why the deadline was missed. No unfair prejudice established.