The battle between GoCatch (Taxi Apps Pty Ltd) and Uber was a landmark clash of Australia’s ride-hailing industry that landed in the courtroom.
What began as a bid to challenge a global giant on the streets became a five-year legal saga in the Supreme Court of Victoria.
In parallel with class actions brought by taxi drivers and operators across the globe, GoCatch claimed Uber conspired with its subsidiaries to deliberately kneecap its Taxi app before ridesharing was lawful in Australia.
“Go very aggressive...
It’s green until they prove it’s red”
From Hustle to Court Showdown
GoCatch launched in 2011 as a local taxi-booking app with high-profile backers (including billionaire James Packer). With 265,000 passengers, 29,000 drivers and 340,000 trips, the app enjoyed early success connecting passengers with licensed taxis.
Then Uber landed.
With GoCatch’s growing customer base, Uber dialled up the competition to scale back GoCatch’s ability to lean on network effects.
Uber’s playbook was simple. Driven from the top by founder Travis Kalanick, it was one of aggressive “regulatory arbitrage”: launch services first and deal with the laws later.
After piloting UberBlack in 2012, Uber rolled out UberX in 2014 despite ridesharing being unlawful at the time.
By 2017, GoCatch was operating across Australia’s major cities. But so too did Uber. As Uber flooded the market with unlicensed rideshare drivers, GoCatch’s growth flatlined.
Feeling crushed by Uber’s tactics, Taxi Apps (GoCatch) commenced proceedings in 2020 against Uber Technologies Inc. and its subsidiaries, alleging the group unlawfully conspired to take out GoCatch.
The Legal Line Up
Corrs Chambers Westgarth acted for Taxi Apps. They briefed Michael Hodge KC as lead, with juniors including Kane Loxley, Colette Mintz and Kalia Laycock-Walsh.
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer led the defence for Uber. John Sheahan KC and David Sulan SC appeared with Madeleine Ellicott and Amy Campbell.
Claims of Conspiracy and Espionage
GoCatch’s allegations detailed a campaign of unlawful tactics by Uber to sabotage its local rival. In essence, Uber agreed with its subsidiaries to plan and execute illegal tactics to injure GoCatch’s business.
To support this claim, GoCatch uncovered internal Uber emails and documents that pulled back the curtain on the early rideshare wars.
And industrial espionage sat centre stage.
Evidence showed Uber deployed a tool called “Surfcam” to scrape the GoCatch app and harvest driver lists and phone numbers, which were then used for targeted poaching.
An email from July 2013 had Uber’s Australian manager, David Rohrsheim: “I just got my hands on something game changing – phone numbers for all GoCatch drivers... We are aggressively cold-calling (without disclosing how we got their number) and won 56 of their drivers.”
Another manager was blunter.
“GoCatch is the reason we’re launching taxi in Sydney. Fuck those guys.”
Uber’s brazen defiance of the law was spotlighted as an “unlawful means” in the alleged conspiracy. GoCatch argued Uber knowingly launched UberX illegally in 2014 to gain market share at any cost.
GoCatch painted a picture of Uber’s conduct as unlawful and intentional sabotage – from hiring away GoCatch’s drivers with illicit data to flouting laws aimed at “destroying an Australian taxi app” that threatened Uber’s expansion.
Uber’s Defence
Uber, represented by a heavyweight legal team, “vigorously” denied it was to blame for GoCatch’s failure. It argued that stiff competition in a fast-moving market isn’t a tort.
First, Uber maintained that its conduct – however aggressive – did not amount to an unlawful conspiracy. This was principally because, as a matter of law, there cannot be a conspiracy between entities within a corporate group for this tort.
Counsel characterised Surfcam-style scraping as “not honourable, but lawful”, drawing a line between ethics and liability. In Uber's telling, what GoCatch called a “combination” was a single corporate group acting unilaterally under parent direction, not an agreement among separate actors.
Second, Uber pressed that GoCatch’s struggles were a product of market forces and GoCatch’s missteps — not caused by a conspiracy.
The Decision
After more than a year of deliberation, Justice Nichols delivered her judgment on 25 August 2025, a decision closely watched by both tech companies and the taxi industry.
Nichols J ultimately rejected Taxi Apps’ conspiracy claim.
Intention to injure: The tort requires that Uber combined with the requisite purpose of injuring GoCatch. This was addressed on a state-by-state basis, finding Uber Inc. and Uber Australia held the relevant intention to harm Taxi Apps only in New South Wales.
No combination: The conspiracy tort failed because the conduct was unilaterally directed by Uber’s parent. While accepting that a combination between related entities can happen, “Uber Inc itself determined what would occur without needing the concurrence of its subsidiaries.”
Breach of confidence: The Court found Uber improperly obtained GoCatch’s confidential driver list. Justice Nichols called it “unconscionable” and deserving of “disapproval and condemnation”, but declined to grant declarations or damages given its relatively confined scope.
Her Honour found that while Uber “leveraged the benefits of its corporate structure” (including to limit potential liabilities flowing from the operation of UberX), this does not establish a combination between the entities.
A case on the limits of the conspiracy tort in the context of corporate unity, but also a rare judicial rebuke of Uber’s early tactics.
Justice Nichols’ ruling gives Uber legal vindication and a moral caution. As GoCatch’s story closes, its legacy may well be that it helped bring Uber’s shady tactics into the light, even if the scales of justice ultimately did not tip in its favour.