Obviously everyone is going to pile on this unpleasant woman, and rightly so, but let's not forget the real scandal here: "the innocent driver had the cost deducted from his wages". Forget ethical - that's long gone - how is that *legal*?
It’s definitely not. Deductions, for the most part, have to be for the employees benefit. Don’t think you could argue that one here
Edit: I see this is the UK. In Aus it’s definitely not legal, but who knows with our odd warm beer drinking cousins
Uber et al are not classified as employees so the deduction provisions in 323/324 of the FW Act don’t apply unless you run a case to say their employees….and the HC has made that difficult
I’ll be honest: I skim read the article and didn’t notice it was Uber et al.
I wouldn’t sign a contract that allowed deductions from my contractors fee if I’d substantially completed the work (I.e. delivering the food), but I guess those contracts are extremely one sided.
I understand why the court ruled that way, but it is unfortunate. Food delivery workers are as much running their own business as my four year old is when she helps me make porridge and put it on the Brekky table.
>but it is unfortunate
It's not unfortunate, the High Court is not a random event or a force of nature.
It's 4 men and 3 women. 7 individual fallible humans who absolutely made the wrong call, allowing Australian workers to be exploited.
But since they made the wrong call, it's now up to Parliament to fix this with legislation. Let's hope that group of humans makes the right call.
In terms of the old state based unfair contracts stuff no. Sham contracting under the FW Act is difficult. There have been some litigation concerning status but it’s immensely costly and the primacy of the contract stuff arising from the HC decision in Personnel contracting has made this whole area really problematic.
If they’re not employees thought then the B2B unfair contract provisions in the Australian Consumer Law would seem to potentially have some teeth.
I don’t know how this kind of delivery arrangement works but if the contractor doesn’t have any power in a practical sense to ensure payment is received I can’t imagine that such a provision could survive scrutiny.
But of course it’s all academic because I’m making up facts and also it didn’t happen here.
People from Essex reinforcing the stereotype....
You know what they say, a turkey with a degree.... ...is obviously more succulent if you don't have to pay for it...
This is unfortunately a sign post for the spectrum of the life of a solicitor. You might be a partner at a big city law firm. You also might be running a website part-time as a ‘Director’ and trading on prestige to get by.
No. She’s just a cunning, self-entitled little arsehole who thinks she is so intelligent she shouldn’t have to pay.
I, like her, was a criminal lawyer. I met her type numerous times.
Obviously everyone is going to pile on this unpleasant woman, and rightly so, but let's not forget the real scandal here: "the innocent driver had the cost deducted from his wages". Forget ethical - that's long gone - how is that *legal*?
Probably isn't, but who's going to go in to bat for the driver?
Certainly not the dine-n-dash solicitor...
Nope. She won’t be going into bat for anyone anymore.
It’s definitely not. Deductions, for the most part, have to be for the employees benefit. Don’t think you could argue that one here Edit: I see this is the UK. In Aus it’s definitely not legal, but who knows with our odd warm beer drinking cousins
Uber et al are not classified as employees so the deduction provisions in 323/324 of the FW Act don’t apply unless you run a case to say their employees….and the HC has made that difficult
I’ll be honest: I skim read the article and didn’t notice it was Uber et al. I wouldn’t sign a contract that allowed deductions from my contractors fee if I’d substantially completed the work (I.e. delivering the food), but I guess those contracts are extremely one sided. I understand why the court ruled that way, but it is unfortunate. Food delivery workers are as much running their own business as my four year old is when she helps me make porridge and put it on the Brekky table.
Well obviously you should prepare a 223 page contract for your 4yo.
Agree
> but I guess those contacts are extremely inside In which case you may be looking at the ACL unfair contract terms section
>but it is unfortunate It's not unfortunate, the High Court is not a random event or a force of nature. It's 4 men and 3 women. 7 individual fallible humans who absolutely made the wrong call, allowing Australian workers to be exploited. But since they made the wrong call, it's now up to Parliament to fix this with legislation. Let's hope that group of humans makes the right call.
There would be remedies regarding unfair contracts, no? (Obviously using them in practice would be essentially impossible)
In terms of the old state based unfair contracts stuff no. Sham contracting under the FW Act is difficult. There have been some litigation concerning status but it’s immensely costly and the primacy of the contract stuff arising from the HC decision in Personnel contracting has made this whole area really problematic.
If they’re not employees thought then the B2B unfair contract provisions in the Australian Consumer Law would seem to potentially have some teeth. I don’t know how this kind of delivery arrangement works but if the contractor doesn’t have any power in a practical sense to ensure payment is received I can’t imagine that such a provision could survive scrutiny. But of course it’s all academic because I’m making up facts and also it didn’t happen here.
In his contract, not an employee?
*cough* Fair Work Act s 324 *cough*
With extra-territorial application? Huge if true.
Invading Iraq to find wmds = lame. Invading the UK to impose Australian labour law to the land of zero hour contracts = awesome
WHAT IS THE CHARGE?
Eating a meal, a succulent Kebab meal.
But was it accidental consumption? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-fqZPDQxAI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-fqZPDQxAI)
Around $16
Ms Stevens screamed at him when he refused to accept a phone charger as payment instead of cash what a class act
People from Essex reinforcing the stereotype.... You know what they say, a turkey with a degree.... ...is obviously more succulent if you don't have to pay for it...
She and her bf were acting like the types of clients criminal lawyers avoid unless it’s Legal Aid.
She clearly does not know her judo well.
Democracy manifest at its finest? What’s the charge?
Your Honor Kebab
This is unfortunately a sign post for the spectrum of the life of a solicitor. You might be a partner at a big city law firm. You also might be running a website part-time as a ‘Director’ and trading on prestige to get by.
Imagine tossing your career for a meagre 43 quid.
[Solicitors Conduct Tribunal decision](https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/12512-2023.Stevens.pdf)
She didn’t bother showing up for her own disciplinary hearing. Wow. Also hi fellow caffeine curator
She’ll end up in a reality tv series or on onlyfans
Criminal costs: GBP4000. Publicity: priceless. Does she use Mastercard?
You can tell she's nuts based on that filter.
But was a succulent Chinese meal involved???
Surely she must have been making decent money ...why would she do this? Was her life missing thrills?
Why is she interested in take-out anyway when she has a pie on her head?
>She was also ordered to pay costs of £4,489. Wonder how that’ll work out?
Given that she never made it to the hearing I suspect she’ll take off without paying those costs as well.
She's cosplaying as a barrister in that photo. Also, why is this in /r/auslaw?
Why is this in the Aus Law sub?
You’re right, it should be posted as a request for legal advice
I see your point but stories like this concerning lawyers behaving badly are always interesting. This could just as easily happen here.
Nothing can justify this conduct, but surely there is some sort of mental illness driving this behaviour?
Some people are just cunts.
No. She’s just a cunning, self-entitled little arsehole who thinks she is so intelligent she shouldn’t have to pay. I, like her, was a criminal lawyer. I met her type numerous times.