Youssef Ahmad v Raiser Pacific Pty Ltd T/A Uber Australia [2025] FWC 3224

Fair Work Act 2009

Youssef Ahmad v Raiser Pacific Pty Ltd T/A Uber Australia [2025] FWC 3224 | Case summary | Zoe

[5]

[1] On 10 October 2025, Mr Youssef Ahmad filed an application pursuant to s 536LU of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) seeking an unfair deactivation remedy. The application concerns Raiser Pacific Pty Ltd T/A Uber Australia (Uber). Mr Ahmad had a digital account operated by Uber in connection with his work as an Uber driver and performed work through or by means of that account.
[2] Uber objects to the application on the basis it says that Mr Ahmad is not a person protected from unfair deactivation pursuant to Part 3A-3 of the Act because Mr Ahmad did not perform work through or by means of its digital labour platform on a regular basis for a period of at least 6 months. It also claims the application was made outside the prescribed time limit. Uber seeks that the application be dismissed for these reasons.
[3] I directed both parties to file and serve material in support of their respective positions in relation to this matter and indicated that, upon receipt of that material, I would advise parties as to whether I considered it could be dealt with on the papers, or whether a hearing was required. When I received the parties' material, I advised parties I considered the matter could be dealt with on the basis of what had been filed without a hearing. Both parties confirmed they agreed the matter could be dealt with on the papers.
[4] Mr Ahmad began working as an Uber driver from 25 January 2018. Uber says his account was deactivated on 30 April 2025. Mr Ahmad says the deactivation of his account took effect on 1 May 2025 - a discrepancy that is not material in this matter. On the basis of the material filed, I consider it more likely that the deactivation took effect on 30 April 2025 and find as such.
[5] Mr Ahmad filed his application seeking relief in respect to unfair deactivation on 10 October 2025. Section 536LU(3)(a) of the Act provides that an application for unfair deactivation must be made within 21 days after the deactivation took effect, or within such further period as the Commission allows. Mr Ahmad's application should have been filed by 21 May 2025. It was therefore filed 142 days out of time.
[6] Mr Ahmad says that between 1 November 2024 and 1 May 2025 he performed work on the Uber platform from 28 March 2025 to 9 April 2025. Uber submitted that Mr Ahmad performed no work in the six months prior to his deactivation or, even if he did, he clearly did not work on at least an average of 60 hours of paid work per month or on at least 3 days of each week. None of the materials provided for me indicated whether Mr Ahmad, across the lengthy duration of his employment, has ever performed work through or by means of the Uber platform on a regular basis for a period of at least 6 months.
[7] Mr Ahmad said that the reason he did not file his application within time was because he didn't know what to do, and got frustrated, depressed and confused. He said he is "on the DSP" and facing a "very bad financial hardship", and that he cannot afford to pay for a lawyer. He said he called the Commission and got advice from one of its "friendly officers".
[8] In relation to what he did to dispute the deactivation of his account, Mr Ahmad said he tried to call Uber support but did not reach anyone and received an automatic answer reply.
[9] Mr Ahmad claimed the deactivation of his account was unfair because he was "kicked off" without any explanation as to the allegation of fraud that was made against him. Uber said that the deactivation of the account occurred because Mr Ahmad uploaded a fraudulent document to his account, in breach of its Community Guidelines. It also said that the deactivation occurred in accordance with the Fair Work (Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code) Instrument 2024 (the Code) which included Mr Ahmad having been provided with deactivation warning and a preliminary deactivation notice referring to the reason it was contemplating deactivating his account.

[7]

[10] A further period of time can be allowed for an unfair deactivation application to be made, but only if the Commission is satisfied there are exceptional circumstances, taking into account several matters. My consideration of each of these factors is set out below. The Commission's approach to this question is similar to the approach taken in respect to time limit considerations relating to applications made under Parts 3-1 and 3-2 of the Act[1] and thus establishes a "high hurdle" for an application for an extension[2].
[11] When considering the reason provided for the delay[3], the Commission will usually focus its enquiry on whether the reason for the delay is "adequate", or "credible" or "acceptable", and the absence of an explanation for any part of the delay will usually weigh against an applicant in the assessment of whether there are exceptional circumstances[4]. The reason for the delay need not necessarily be one that "justifies" the delay, but the allowance of further time is discretionary, taking into account whether exceptional circumstances exist, and it is in this context that the assessment is made[5].
[12] I do not consider Mr Ahmad's reason for the lengthy delay in filing his application weighs in favour of a finding there are exceptional circumstances in this matter. Mr Ahmad's frustration, depression or confusion are not exceptional matters, nor is any difficulty he faced obtaining advice until he ultimately spoke to someone from the Commission.
[13] Mr Ahmad did not become aware of the deactivation after it took effect and thus had the full period of 21 days to file his application[6].
[14] Mr Ahmad's submissions as to what he did to contest the deactivation[7] were minimal and did not describe circumstances which are exceptional.
[15] Mr Ahmad submitted there is no prejudice to Uber if an extension is granted - Uber said there is prejudice in that if an extension is granted in that it will incur further time, effort and monetary cost defending the Application[8]. I do not consider the prejudice to Uber if an extension is granted weighs against a finding there are exceptional circumstances in this matter.
[16] It is well established that the Commission will not ordinarily embark on a detailed consideration of the merits of the substantive case when considering whether to grant an extension of time[9]. Uber submits that the manner in which the deactivation occurred was consistent with the Code, was based on a valid reason and was fair. However, Mr Ahmad submits that the basis for the deactivation is unfair. With this contest in mind, I do not consider the merits of this matter, based on the material before me at this time, weigh for or against a finding that exceptional circumstances exist[10].
[17] In terms of fairness between Mr Ahmad and persons in a similar position[11], Uber submits that this is a neutral consideration in this matter. Mr Ahmad's submission in relation to this issue related to the fairness of his own deactivation rather than being a comparative submission as to his circumstances and persons in similar positions. On the basis of these submissions, I consider this to be a neutral factor in my consideration of whether exceptional circumstances exist such that Mr Ahmad should be granted additional time for his application to be made.
[18] As mentioned, Uber submits that it complied with the process specified Code in making the decision to deactivate Mr Ahmad's account[12]. It does appear that Mr Ahmad was provided with a warning, and a preliminary deactivation notice, and it is asserted that Mr Ahmad was provided with an opportunity to speak to a representative of Uber about the preliminary deactivation notice. Mr Ahmad did not address these matters in his submissions. I was not in a position to undertake a detailed consideration as to whether Uber complied with processes specified in the Code in relation to this matter. I consider this factor weighs neutrally in my consideration.
[19] Having considered each of the factors set out in s 536LU(4) of the Act I have not reached a state of satisfaction as to the existence of exceptional circumstances in this matter. This is particularly because I consider Mr Ahmad has not been able to provide a reason for the considerable delay in filing his application that supports such a conclusion.
[20] The other factors I am required to consider do not outweigh the absence of a reason for the delay. None weigh sufficiently to overcome Mr Ahmad's failure to file him unfair dismissal claim within the three weeks afforded to him by the Act.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (20 paragraphs)

Youssef Ahmad v Raiser Pacific Pty Ltd T/A Uber Australia [2025] FWC 3224 (13 November 2025)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)