The first week in November has been all about the Spring Racing carnival at Flemington: fashion, hats, horses and fun. In Canberra, there has been another carnival of sorts dealing with prominent legal cases. Whilst there have been several landmark decisions handed down by the High Court of Australia over the last few months, in the first week in November alone, the Court has been dealing with two key cases that may have a considerable impact on businesses and liabilities that may arise for payroll tax and consideration of the ban on the use of social media by children under 16.

Uber fares

On Wednesday 4 November 2026, the Court delivered its judgment (6.1 majority with Justice Steward dissenting) in Uber Australia Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2026] S170/2025 which saw $81 million in payroll tax (which were the payments over a 5-year period) being required to be repaid by Uber. Uber argued that its payments to drivers were to contractors and that it was a “limited payment collection agent”. However, the Court determined that the drivers supplied services to Uber despite the customers physically receiving those services and it determined that the fares which were paid to its drivers were wages and therefore, subject to payroll tax.

There were three questions which were required to be considered by the Court:

1. Did drivers supply services to Uber through a “relevant contract”?

The Court said the answer is yes. The contracts which were entered into between Uber and the drivers were contracts under section 32(1)(b) of the Payroll Tax Act 2007 (NSW) (the Act). There was a critical feature of the driver contracts with Uber in that the driver was required to provide driving services to Uber at a specific standard.

2. Were the driving services “ancillary” to the use of the driver’s vehicle?

The Court said the answer is no. The Court determined that both the driver and the vehicle were essential to the provision of the services and that the exception under section 32(2)(a) of the Act only applies where the performance of the services is ancillary to the use of specific goods.

3. Were the remitted fares deemed to be wages?

The Court said the answer is yes. Uber argued that it was merely collecting fares in its role as a “limited payment collection agent” and that it did not pay the drivers for their services. The Court did not accept this argument and instead determined that the fares were amounts that Uber paid in respect of the drivers’ performance of their obligations under the contract and those amounts were therefore characterised as wages.

The Court’s decision in Uber does not just affect those in the rideshare business – there may be a range of other businesses that engage contractors to undertake services or businesses that collect and deal with customer payments and may be faced with a bill for payroll tax in respect of the provision of those services. Whether someone is a contractor or an employee is one of the questions our employment lawyers at FCW Lawyers are asked most often, and we regularly advise on and resolve disputes in this complex area.

Social media ban for under 16s

The High Court has also been hearing an application over two days concerning the under-16 social media ban and whether it is unconstitutional. The legal challenge has been made by separate applications by Reddit and the Digital Freedom Project, which have been combined into a single case, with a range of international bodies seeking to appear as “amicus curiae” (friends of the Court) in respect of the applications. The purpose of the ban, introduced in December 2025, was to protect children from the risks of harm and access to platforms with harmful features to their health and mental wellbeing. The ban was the first and has undoubtedly been closely watched overseas. A range of submissions were likely argued before the Court by the plaintiffs as well as the Australian government. Therefore, it will be interesting to see what the outcome of this legal challenge will be and how long the Court may take to make its decision – either way, the ban will remain in force until the Court determines whether the ban is unconstitutional or not.