Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd

The High Court of Australia considered the employment status of a bicycle courier in *Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd*. The dispute arose when the courier, Mr. Hollis, suffered injuries while working and sought to claim workers' compensation from his employer, Vabu Pty Ltd. Vabu argued that Mr. Hollis was an independent contractor, not an employee, and therefore not entitled to workers' compensation.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether Mr. Hollis was an employee of Vabu Pty Ltd or an independent contractor at the time of his injury. This determination was crucial for establishing Vabu's liability for workers' compensation under the relevant legislation.

The High Court, by majority, found that Mr. Hollis was an employee. The Court applied the "control test" and considered various factors indicative of an employment relationship, including the degree of control Vabu exercised over the manner in which Mr. Hollis performed his work, the provision of equipment (the bicycle and uniform), the integration of Mr. Hollis into Vabu's business operations, and the economic reality of the relationship. The Court emphasised that the label given to the relationship by the parties was not determinative and that the substance of the relationship, viewed holistically, pointed towards employment. The Court noted that the courier's work was an integral part of Vabu's business, and Vabu exercised a significant degree of control over the couriers, including their appearance and the manner in which they conducted themselves. The Court concluded that the risk of injury lay with the employer, not the individual contractor.