Hallam v Tancred [2024] FCA 837

Hallam v Tancred [2024] FCA 837

A partnership, not an employer/employee relationship, existed between Mr Tancred and Shallam/Hallam from January 2016, based on their agreement for a 50/50 business split, conduct, mutual use of 'drawings', and lack of intention to create an employment contract. Ms Nagel volunteered assistance without an intention to contract for employment. Consequently, the foundational finding that Tancred and Nagel were employees was in error and the Fair Work Act orders had no basis.

Parties
First Appellant: Stuart Hallam; Second Appellant: The Trustee of the SW Hallam Discretionary Trust; First Respondent: Matthew Tancred; Second Respondent: Kellie Nagel
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; orders of circuit court set aside; proceeding dismissed.
Legal Topics
Employment Contract Formation, Partnership Law, Fiduciary Duties, Employee Status, Contractual Intention, Fair Work Act Contraventions
Employment Industrial Law Employment Contract Formation Partnership Law Fiduciary Duties Employee Status Contractual Intention Fair Work Act Contraventions

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 6 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stuart Hallam

First Appellant

The Trustee of the SW Hallam Discretionary Trust

Second Appellant

Matthew Tancred

First Respondent

Kellie Nagel

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Tancred and Ms Nagel were employees of Shallam Pty Ltd
  2. 2 Whether an oral agreement formed an employment relationship
  3. 3 Whether a partnership existed between Mr Tancred and Mr Hallam

Ratio Decidendi

A partnership, not an employer/employee relationship, existed between Mr Tancred and Shallam/Hallam from January 2016, based on their agreement for a 50/50 business split, conduct, mutual use of 'drawings', and lack of intention to create an employment contract. Ms Nagel volunteered assistance without an intention to contract for employment. Consequently, the foundational finding that Tancred and Nagel were employees was in error and the Fair Work Act orders had no basis.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; orders of circuit court set aside; proceeding dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal be allowed.
  • The orders made by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) on 23 August 2023 and 12 October 2023 in proceeding SYG 1494 of 2018 be set aside.