Moffet v Dental Corporation Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 344

Moffet v Dental Corporation Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 344

Dr Moffet was not an employee of Dental Corporation but was retained as an independent contractor, having control over his work, operating with a high degree of independence, submitting tax returns as a business, and the contractual terms (including cl 14.1) supported this. However, under the extended definition in the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth), Dr Moffet was an employee for superannuation purposes, as the contract was wholly or principally for his labour in an employment-like setting.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Originating Application / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for Respondent in respect of employment claims; judgment for Applicant in respect of superannuation claim.
Legal Topics
['employee Vs Independent Contractor' 'annual Leave' 'long Service Leave' 'superannuation Guarantee' 'employment Relationship Determination']
['industrial Law' 'superannuation' 'employment Law'] ['employee Vs Independent Contractor' 'annual Leave' 'long Service Leave' 'superannuation Guarantee' 'employment Relationship Determination']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Originating Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Dr Moffet was an employee or independent contractor at common law' 'Whether the respondent contravened the Fair Work Act by treating Dr Moffet as an independent contractor' 'Whether Dr Moffet is entitled to accrued but untaken annual leave payments' 'Whether Dr Moffet is entitled to payments for accrued long service leave under the Long Service Leave Act 1955 (NSW)' 'Whether the respondent was required to make superannuation contributions under the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth)']

Ratio Decidendi

Dr Moffet was not an employee of Dental Corporation but was retained as an independent contractor, having control over his work, operating with a high degree of independence, submitting tax returns as a business, and the contractual terms (including cl 14.1) supported this. However, under the extended definition in the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth), Dr Moffet was an employee for superannuation purposes, as the contract was wholly or principally for his labour in an employment-like setting.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Respondent in respect of employment claims; judgment for Applicant in respect of superannuation claim.

Orders

  • ['The parties are to bring in Short Minutes of Orders to give effect to these reasons within fourteen days.']