Uber, a San Francisco-based company founded in 2009, began as a transportation technology application whereby users could request premium transportation services in a few large metropolitan areas. The company has since transformed into a global transportation network, connecting drivers and riders in over 484 cities worldwide. Uber boasts benefits to the cities in which they operate, including strengthened local economies, improved access to transportation, and safer streets.
Uber’s presence in Canada is growing each year and the service is active in Edmonton, Ottawa and other Canadian cities. Uber is not, however, currently operating in Manitoba.
The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”) introduced its 6th edition of Arbitration Rules (“SIAC Rules 2016”) during SIAC Congress 2016, which was held on 25-27 May 2016. It also marked their 25th year since operations commenced in 1991. The group announced that the SIAC Rules 2016 will take effect on 1 August 2016. The SIAC Rules 2016 contains several new features, as well as some refinements from the SIAC 5th edition of Arbitration Rules that were implemented on 1 April 2013 (“SIAC Rules 2013”).
By Gonzalo E. Mon
Earlier this year, Airbnb ran a contest in which one winner could “come stay in the former home of Julia Child.” The company LaPitchouneadvertised that entrants could imagine themselves “walking the halls of Julia Child’s former home,” and “channeling the culinary genius of Julia Child,” while “combing over the knick knacks in her kitchen exactly as she left them.” Although the contest may have been a hit with travelers and fans of the original celebrity chef, the chef’s estate was less enthused. This week, The Julia Child Foundation for Gastronomy and the Culinary Arts sued Airbnb and its publicity firm, arguing that contest violated Child’s right of publicity.
Since the recognition by our courts of the use of the constitutional principle of legality as a “catch-all” or “residual” ground for the review of conduct by public bodies, there appears to be an increasing trend amongst our courts to skirt around pronouncing on whether decisions under review constitute “administrative action” reviewable under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 ("PAJA") or not. While this is an understandably practical approach it unfortunately conduces to obscurity in relation to what constitutes administrative action as contemplated under PAJA and what does not.
Roering NO v Mahlangu (581/2015)  ZASCA 79 (30 May 2016)
Liquidators' entitlement to investigate the strength of a potential claim has been put in the spotlight in the recent case of Roering NO v Mahlangu per Wallis JA (Willis, Saldulker and Zondi JJA and Tsoka AJA concurring), where the Supreme Court of Appeal ("SCA") ruled that the legality of a summons issued by a commissioner pursuant to an enquiry in terms of sections 417 and 418 of the Companies Act 61 of 1973 ("the Act") would be determined by its purpose, and not its effect. The SCA found that a summons does not constitute an abuse of process merely because the issues canvassed in the examination may overlap with issues in pending or contemplated civil litigation.