GoCatch was shedding passengers before UberX arrived, court told

“Specifically,” Mr Sheahan continued, “it is a picture of rapidly increasing disengagement by passengers over a reasonably short timeframe — correct?

“And that, essentially, is the picture of a product that is not meeting the needs of the passengers?”

Mr Moorfield accepted the Uber barrister’s first assertion, but said he couldn’t answer the second question without more “visibility” regarding GoCatch’s performance relative to the taxi networks.

Mr Sheahan revealed that GoCatch’s support program, which Mr Moorfield said was launched in “early 2013”, routinely received thousands of customer complaints each month about drivers “simply not turning up”.

One driver, the barrister said, had received 80 negative reviews, had been blocked four times, and demonstrated a “long pattern of accepting jobs and failing to collect”, but was still driving for GoCatch.

“You never had the resources to deal with thousands of issues of that kind every month, did you?” Mr Sheahan asked Mr Moorfield. “No, we didn’t, (but) we were getting smarter about how we handled those volumes,” he replied.

Meanwhile, the court was told on Monday that GoCatch had hatched its own plans to lure over drivers from rival Uber by speaking to them via the app.

Uber has admitted developing spyware software called SurfCam in its Sydney office to steal contact details of GoCatch drivers to poach them, but GoCatch went via a more rudimentary method of chatting to UberX drivers through the app and asking them for their phone numbers.

Multiple techniques

Mr Sheahan showed Mr Moorfield a document entitled ‘ways to obtain driver details’, in which GoCatch’s then head of product and operations, Peter Crowe, listed multiple techniques for GoCatch staff to get the phone numbers of Uber drivers, which he argued was “deceitful”.

These included asking drivers for their number to arrange regular private trips and ostensibly asking the driver to get in touch regarding lost property.

Mr Moorfield agreed there would be an element of deceit involved in those methods, but said GoCatch staff didn’t ultimately need to use them, given that UberX driver contact details were available to users anyway. He added that while he knew these matters were being discussed, he wasn’t sure if he ever read Mr Crowe’s document.

“I’m not sure if it falls under deceit,” Mr Moorfield replied.

“We used the Uber service legitimately and gained access to the driver’s number through legitimate use. I’m not sure that falls under deceit.

“The method I am familiar with is actually catching Ubers and paying for legitimate trips. To my recollection, you could actually get the driver’s contact details when you booked via the Uber app.”

Mr Sheahan then questioned why GoCatch would need to form tactics to obtain the numbers of Uber drivers if they could get them by using the app. “All you need to do is catch lots of Ubers, and you don’t need to worry about lying to the drivers about children being at school and so forth.”

Mr Moorfield said he wasn’t aware if Mr Crowe had personally used the Uber app when he created the document.

The owners of GoCatch are seeking extensive damages for Uber deliberately harming its business to pave the way for its own success. Uber claims its actions were not principally targeted at GoCatch, and that GoCatch failed to compete with multiple taxi booking apps, not just Uber.

The statement of agreed facts between Uber and GoCatch, signed off on the eve of the trial, contained an admission of seemingly global importance from Uber – that it was knowingly complicit in UberX drivers breaking the law when it first launched the so-called ride-sharing service in 2014.

Messages revealed by Mr Sheahan last week showed a breakdown in the working relationship between Mr Moorfield and his co-founder, Andrew Campbell, and fears by major investors like Square Peg Capital and Paradice Investment Management that GoCatch’s product was not up to scratch.