Farnan v Insurance Logic Pty Ltd and Anor

The applicant, Mr Farnan, sought to establish that he was an employee of Insurance Logic Pty Ltd for the purposes of the *Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992* (Cth) (the Act). Mr Farnan had been engaged as a consultant through a company, and the dispute arose when he unilaterally changed the terms of his payment. The matter was heard by Judge McNab.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether Mr Farnan, as a consultant engaged through an intermediary company, fell within the extended definition of "employee" as provided by section 12(3) of the Act. This section extends the definition of employee to include individuals who work under a contract for their labour or services, even if they are not formally employed by the principal.

Judge McNab considered the nature of the relationship between Mr Farnan and Insurance Logic. The Court applied the principles established in cases concerning the interpretation of section 12(3) of the Act, which typically involve an examination of the substance of the relationship, including factors such as control, integration, and the intention of the parties. The Court found that the evidence did not support a finding that Mr Farnan was an employee within the extended definition.

Consequently, the application filed by Mr Farnan was dismissed, and there were no orders as to costs.