Hazell v Sewell [2021] FCAFC 76
The Award's definition of 'performance' encompasses both a performance open to the general public on payment of admission and a performance for which the employer receives payment or other benefit; thus, casual performers like Mr Hazell, even at private functions, are covered if the employer receives payment or benefit.
- Parties
- Appellant: Julian Hazell; Respondent: Anthony James Sewell
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 21 May 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; matter remitted for further determination
- Legal Topics
- Statutory Interpretation, Award Coverage, Casual Employment, Live Performance Award 2010
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Julian Hazell
Appellant
Anthony James Sewell
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Live Performance Award 2010 applies to a disc jockey employed casually for private functions
- 2 Interpretation of 'performance' under the Award—does it require the performance to be open to the general public for coverage
Ratio Decidendi
The Award's definition of 'performance' encompasses both a performance open to the general public on payment of admission and a performance for which the employer receives payment or other benefit; thus, casual performers like Mr Hazell, even at private functions, are covered if the employer receives payment or benefit.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; matter remitted for further determination
Orders
- The appeal be allowed.
- The order made by the Federal Circuit Court on 11 September 2020 be set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment