Grant v State of Victoria (the Office of Public Prosecutions) (No.2)

This proceeding concerned a claim for damages for breach of contract and misleading or deceptive conduct brought by the applicant, Mr Grant, against the respondent, the State of Victoria (the Office of Public Prosecutions). The dispute arose from an agreement for Mr Grant to provide services as an independent contractor to the Office of Public Prosecutions. The court was the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issues before the court were whether Mr Grant was in fact an employee of the Office of Public Prosecutions, notwithstanding the contractual characterisation of his engagement as an independent contractor, and if so, whether the respondent had breached the employment contract by failing to provide him with work and pay. Further, the court had to determine whether the respondent had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of the Australian Consumer Law by representing that Mr Grant was an independent contractor when he was, in reality, an employee.

In determining the true nature of the relationship, the court applied the multifactorial test, considering various indicia of employment and independent contracting. The court found that despite the contractual terms, the reality of the working relationship exhibited a high degree of control by the Office of Public Prosecutions over Mr Grant's work, including the manner and method of performance, the provision of equipment, and the integration of his services into the respondent's operations. These factors weighed heavily in favour of an employment relationship. Consequently, the court concluded that Mr Grant was an employee and that the respondent had breached the employment contract by failing to provide him with work and pay. The court also found that the respondent's conduct in representing Mr Grant as an independent contractor, when he was in fact an employee, constituted misleading or deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law.

The court ordered that Mr Grant was entitled to damages for breach of contract and for the misleading or deceptive conduct.