:COUNTER [links:https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-11-04/high-court-rules-on-uber-81-million-tax-bill/107344014]
$81.5M Uber owes NSW in payroll tax after losing Australia's highest court 6-1

:TABLE [title:What each court decided, links:https://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases-and-judgments/cases/current/case-no-s1702025]
Court | Year | Outcome
NSW Supreme Court (primary) | 2024 | Uber wins -- payments not wages
NSW Court of Appeal | 2025 | Uber loses -- payments are wages
High Court of Australia | 2026 | Uber loses 6-1 -- final and unappealable

:TIMELINE [links:https://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases-and-judgments/cases/current/case-no-s1702025]
How the case reached Australia's highest court
2021-01-01 | Revenue NSW issues six payroll tax assessments covering 2015-2020, totalling $81.5M
2024-09-01 | NSW Supreme Court rules for Uber: fares passed to drivers are not wages
2025-08-01 | NSW Court of Appeal reverses: Uber liable for payroll tax under the contractor provisions
2025-12-04 | High Court grants Uber special leave to appeal
2026-04-08 | Full bench of seven justices hears argument in Canberra
2026-11-04 | High Court dismisses Uber's appeal 6-1 -- ruling is HCA 40

:QUOTE [links:https://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases-and-judgments/cases/current/case-no-s1702025, quotetype:plain, subtitle:Chief Justice Gageler -- majority judgment]
Uber has structured its rideshare system business so payments from riders are funnelled through it, giving Uber substantive control over the fares before they are remitted to drivers, allowing Uber to deduct its service fee, or change or cancel the fare e

:INFO
What the ruling does and does not decide
The court found that Uber drivers "supply" services to Uber under contracts that are "relevant contracts" under the NSW Payroll Tax Act 2007, making payments to drivers "wages" for payroll tax purposes. This applies to years 2015-2020 assessed so far. Uber must also pay interest and legal costs on top of the $81.5M.

• What it does not decide: whether Uber drivers are "employees" under federal workplace law, entitled to minimum wages, leave entitlements, or unfair dismissal protections. That question remains separate.
• The majority explicitly addressed the gig economy argument, writing that the contractor provisions have continued "speaking in the present" to platforms that emerged in this century -- rejecting Uber's claim the law was not designed for rideshare.
• Other Australian states, which have harmonised payroll tax laws, are expected to pursue similar assessments. Western Australia, with different legislation, is an exception.
• Legal experts expect the ruling to affect other g

:CHECKLIST [links:https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-11-04/high-court-rules-on-uber-81-million-tax-bill/107344014]
What comes next
[x] High Court dismisses Uber appeal -- HCA 40 handed down 4 Nov 2026
[ ] Revenue NSW collects the $81.5M plus interest and costs -- no further appeal possible
[ ] Other Australian states review payroll tax exposure for Uber and other platforms
[ ] Other gig economy platforms (food delivery, logistics) face parallel scrutiny under same legal theory
[ ] Federal government may face renewed pressure to clarify gig worker employment status under the Fair Work Act

:NOTE
Sources: High Court of Australia case page (hcourt.gov.au/cases-and-judgments/cases/current/case-no-s1702025) for the judgment [2026] HCA 40 and hearing record. ABC News (abc.net.au) for the $81.5M figure and NSW Government response. Capital Brief (capitalbrief.com) for the 6-1 majority breakdown and industry impact. AAP wire via Newcastle Herald (newcastleherald.com.au) for union reaction. Law360 Australia (law360.com) for the legal analysis. The Guardian (theguardian.com) for first publication