“They are in control, not the drivers,” she said. “They decide when to give us jobs, and what kind they will be. They decide how much to charge, the rider pays Uber not us.

“They act just like a boss, which they are, and which makes us employees.”

Sydney Uber driver Malcolm Mackenzie, 59, who is also fighting the case, said he enjoyed driving for Uber but wanted the same rights and conditions enjoyed by other employees. He hoped the litigation would result in a more transparent process for drivers to resolve disputes with Uber.

Another litigant, Sayed Mabashir, 34, of Melbourne said he was deactivated from the Uber app in response to a rider complaint. He alleges he was unfairly sacked after not being given details of the complaint or an opportunity to defend himself after having completed more than 15,000 trips and getting consistently high ratings from his passengers.

Harmers principal Michael Harmer said his firm was seeking a full Federal Court decision that would guide Uber and other gig economy companies.

“What we need is a determination of the law at the highest level,” he said.

Ms Omeri and her colleague Jason Galbraith-Marten, QC, successfully argued that former London Uber drivers James Farrar and Yaseen Aslam were ‘workers’ entitled to rights including the minimum wage, holiday pay and whistleblower protection. Britain’s Supreme Court, equivalent to the Australian High Court delivered its judgement in February this year and found in favour of the Uber drivers.

The British ruling determined the Uber drivers were ultimately ‘workers’, who are entitled to some – but not all – of the employment rights that are afforded to employees. In Australia, workers are defined as either employees or independent contractors. A high level of control over a worker’s hours, pay and conditions usually suggest they are employees and not contractors.

Harmers will allege that Uber exercises a high level of control over drivers including when and where they work and how much they are paid. Uber can also deactivate drivers from its app if drivers decline to accept three journey requests in a row.

Loading

University of Adelaide professor of law Andrew Stewart said Uber was “highly vulnerable” to losing the argument that it only provided the technology which allowed drivers to run their own businesses.

“It is likely this case will be highly contested, both as to how Uber’s system actually works and the legal principles to be applied,” he said.

Professor Stewart said that since the Gupta case was settled, Uber had changed its contract arrangements for Uber Eats drivers to acknowledge they work for Uber, but as independent contractors and not as employees.

Separately, the High Court is considering two cases that do not involve gig workers, but which may be influential in determining whether a worker is deemed to be an employee or an independent contractor, based on their contract. Professor Stewart said that while the Uber drivers had a plausible claim, it was difficult to determine their prospects of success before knowing the outcome of the other High Court cases which he expected would be decided later this year.

The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up here.