Hartnett, Richard v Aardvark Security Services Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 1025

Hartnett, Richard v Aardvark Security Services Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 1025

Mr Hartnett contributed only his personal services, worked under detailed direction as to location, time and duties, wore uniforms supplied by Aardvark Security Services when required, and nothing material changed when he was required to invoice as a contractor or through a company. The reality was that he remained an employee of Aardvark Security Services at all material times, so the only ground of review failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 August 1998
Procedural Posture
Industrial Relations Application Concerning Termination and Compensation Under Division 3 of Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 / Review of a Judicial Registrar's Decision; Application for Review Dismissed
Outcome
Application for review dismissed; Judicial Registrar's order confirmed.
Legal Topics
['employee or Independent Contractor' 'termination of Employment' 'compensation' "review of Judicial Registrar's Decision"]
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['employee or Independent Contractor' 'termination of Employment' 'compensation' "review of Judicial Registrar's Decision"]

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

Industrial Relations Application Concerning Termination and Compensation Under Division 3 of Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 / Review of a Judicial Registrar's Decision; Application for Review Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Richard Hartnett was an employee of Aardvark Security Services Pty Ltd at all material times.']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Hartnett contributed only his personal services, worked under detailed direction as to location, time and duties, wore uniforms supplied by Aardvark Security Services when required, and nothing material changed when he was required to invoice as a contractor or through a company. The reality was that he remained an employee of Aardvark Security Services at all material times, so the only ground of review failed.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed; Judicial Registrar's order confirmed.

Orders

  • ['The application for review is dismissed.' 'The order of the Judicial Registrar is confirmed.' 'Within 14 days, the parties are to advise the District Registrar of the amount of tax that ought to be remitted to the Australian Tax Office.' 'The District Registrar is to pay that tax amount to the Australian Tax...