High Court affirms NSW court’s denial of Uber’s payroll tax appeal

New South Wales Supreme Court proceedings

Before the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Uber requested a review under s 97 of the Taxation Administration Act 1996 (NSW). 

Justice Hammerschlag of the NSW Supreme Court revoked the assessments. He considered the driver contracts relevant contracts since drivers under those contracts supplied Uber with driving services by going to pickup points, picking up riders, and transporting them to their destinations. 

However, the primary judge did not deem the amounts Uber collected and remitted to drivers as wages under the Payroll Tax Act 2007 (NSW). 

Appeal and cross-appeal

The chief commissioner appealed against the primary judge’s ruling refusing to deem the amounts wages. Meanwhile, Uber cross-appealed from the finding that the driver contracts were relevant contracts. 

The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales granted the chief commissioner’s appeal and denied Uber’s cross‑appeal. 

On appeal before the High Court, Uber insisted that it was not liable for payroll tax on payments to drivers to the extent that those payments represented amounts received from and remitted to those drivers. 

High Court dismisses Uber’s appeal with costs

Justices Gordon, Edelman, Gleeson, Jagot, and Beech-Jones of the High Court rejected all of Uber’s grounds of appeal. Specifically, Uber had argued that: 

• The driver contracts were not relevant contracts under s 32(1)(b) of the Payroll Tax Act because the drivers did not supply the driving services to Uber and did not supply them under the driver contracts 
• The driver contracts were also not relevant contracts under s 32(1)(b) since the driving services were ancillary to the use of goods, specifically the cars, which were the drivers’ property under s 32(2)(a) of the Payroll Tax Act 
• Uber’s remittances to the drivers were not amounts paid or payable by Uber to the drivers for or in relation to the performance of work in connection with a relevant contract under s 35 of the Payroll Tax Act 

The High Court’s majority held that the driver contract was a contract under which Uber had supplied the driving services of drivers through its rideshare system business. The majority added that the drivers agreed with Uber to perform particular driving services under specific standards. 

The High Court’s majority deemed it unnecessary to rule on the chief commissioner’s notice of contention. 

Chief Justice Gageler’s findings

Chief Justice Gageler of the High Court of Australia affirmed the NSW Court of Appeal’s conclusion. 

According to Gageler CJ, the appeal court correctly concluded that the contractor provisions operated during the 2015–20 financial years, such that Uber was an employer liable for payroll tax on wages comprising the sums Uber collected from riders under standard-form rider contracts and paid to drivers under standard-form driver contracts, as the chief commissioner attributed to the drivers’ work performance. 

Gageler added that Uber collected and paid those amounts in the operation of its rideshare business. 

Other Australian cases

In August 2025, a docket judge of the Federal Court of Australia recused himself based on a reasonable apprehension of bias upon issuing a judgment finding that his previous professional association with respondent Uber Australia might impact his hearing and determination of the claims. 

In a case where an interstate truck driver sought damages for work injury, the Supreme Court of Victoria made an April 2026 decision finding the employer liable for the costs of its late application to amend the defence based on the employment’s connection with South Australia rather than Victoria. 

Enjoy this story? Read the latest employment and labour law news on the main page!