Mr Leonard Dawe v Psychic TV Pty Ltd - [2025] FWC 2794

[2025] FWC 2794

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Mr Leonard Dawe
v

Psychic TV Pty Ltd

(U2025/5833)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT ROBERTS

SYDNEY, 18 SEPTEMBER 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – objection that applicant an independent contractor – whether applicant dismissed – meaning of employee for purposes of Fair Work Act 2009 - section 15AA

In these proceedings Mr. Leonard Dawe has applied for an unfair dismissal remedy under Part 3-2 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act). The respondent to the application is Psychic TV Pty Ltd. Mr. Dawe worked for the respondent as what was described as a ‘psychic reader’ in the period from approximately November 2021 until April 2025, when he was initially advised by the respondent that his access to the respondent’s platform was withdrawn and subsequently, that his services were no longer required.

The respondent has objected to the application on the basis that the applicant was not an employee of the respondent but worked as an independent contractor by using the respondent’s platform to provide psychic reading services to customers engaging with the applicant through that platform. An application for an unfair dismissal remedy can only be made by a person who has been dismissed from employment. Subsection 386(1) of the Act sets out the circumstances in which a person is taken to have been ‘dismissed’ for the purposes of s.394. A person can only be dismissed when their employment comes to an end in one of the circumstances described in s.386(1). The respondent submitted that the applicant was not dismissed from employment and that the application should proceed no further.

For the reasons that follow, I have concluded that the applicant was not an employee of the respondent and was not ‘dismissed’ by them, and that the unfair dismissal application itself should be dismissed.

Background, factual material and findings

Although directions were made for the filing of evidence including witness statements, neither party provided statements. The evidence was taken from the applicant and the respondent’s representative, Ms. McDonnell, at a conference held on 4 August 2025. As it transpired, much of the factual background to these proceedings was not in dispute and can be briefly summarised.

The respondent owns and administers an on-line platform through which members of the public make and pay for telephone contact with various psychic readers advertised on the respondent’s website. The applicant was one such reader. The customers would choose which of the readers they wished to contact and would be charged for the call by the respondent on a timed basis. The customers would be transferred to the reader of their choice to receive their psychic reading. The reading would last for a maximum of 30 minutes. If callers wished to continue the conversation, they would have to call the reader again using the same process.

The applicant was originally introduced to the respondent in 2021 through a third person who was at the time, also…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Mr Leonard Dawe v Psychic TV Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] FWC 2794
Decision Date: 18 SEPTEMBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr. Leonard Dawe applied to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy in respect of an unfair dismissal by Psychic TV Pty Ltd. The respondent argued that the applicant was an independent contractor and not an employee and had not been dismissed. The Commission had to decide whether the applicant was an employee of the respondent and whether the applicant had been dismissed. The Deputy President concluded that the applicant was an independent contractor and not an employee of the respondent and had not been dismissed. The application for a remedy was dismissed. The Deputy President examined the totality of the relationship between the parties and found that the applicant exercised considerable independence as to both when the work was performed and how it was performed. The respondent exercised little if any control over the way the applicant conducted himself in his discussions with clients. The applicant was paid for the time spent on calls rather than a periodic wage referrable to a particular period of time. The Deputy President found that the applicant was an independent contractor and not an employee of the respondent.

Orders