Tattsbet Limited v Morrow [2015] FCAFC 62

Tattsbet Limited v Morrow [2015] FCAFC 62

The respondent operated as an independent contractor rather than an employee, given her control over staffing, business registration for GST, financial arrangements, and bearing of business risks, notwithstanding the appellant's control and other employee-like aspects; therefore, she was not entitled to employee protections relating to termination notice or sham contracting. However, on the adverse action claim, the trial judge erred by failing to make findings on whether the respondent proposed to exercise a workplace right (making a complaint or inquiry to the ATO about superannuation), and the case should be remitted for determination on that basis. Delay in the original judgment and...

Parties
Appellant / Cross Respondent: Tattsbet Limited; Respondent / Cross Appellant: Sharyn Morrow
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Cross Appeal / Judgment of Full Court on Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal allowed in part; certain orders set aside; matters remitted to the Federal Circuit Court for rehearing and determination; other claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Employee Vs Independent Contractor, General Protections/adverse Action, Workplace Rights, Sham Contracting, Delay in Judgment, Remittal of Claims
Industrial Law Employment Law Statutory Interpretation Practice and Procedure Employee Vs Independent Contractor General Protections/adverse Action Workplace Rights Sham Contracting +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 32 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tattsbet Limited

Appellant / Cross Respondent

Sharyn Morrow

Respondent / Cross Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Cross Appeal / Judgment of Full Court on Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent was an employee or independent contractor of appellant
  2. 2 Whether termination constituted adverse action for proposing to exercise workplace rights under Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)
  3. 3 Whether trial judge erred in dismissing adverse action claim and sham contracting claim

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent operated as an independent contractor rather than an employee, given her control over staffing, business registration for GST, financial arrangements, and bearing of business risks, notwithstanding the appellant's control and other employee-like aspects; therefore, she was not entitled to employee protections relating to termination notice or sham contracting. However, on the adverse action claim, the trial judge erred by failing to make findings on whether the respondent proposed to exercise a workplace right (making a complaint or inquiry to the ATO about superannuation), and the case should be remitted for determination on that basis. Delay in the original judgment and...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal allowed in part; certain orders set aside; matters remitted to the Federal Circuit Court for rehearing and determination; other claims dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal be allowed.
  • Orders 1 and 2 made by the Federal Circuit Court on 4 July 2014 be set aside.