FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Parker v HG Innovations Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 1051
Appeal from: Parker v HG Innovations Pty Ltd & Ors [2020] FCCA 3093 File number: QUD 359 of 2020 Judgment of: LOGAN J Date of judgment: 31 August 2021 Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – appeal from the decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia to dismiss the appellant’s application pursuant to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – where the appellant had alleged “adverse action” as a result of termination – where the primary judge made averse credibility findings of the appellant – where those findings accorded with contemporaneous documents – whether the appellant was an employee of one of the respondent companies – where contractual relationship between the parties was informal – where parties chose by their contract to term the respondent a “contractor” – where the respondents had a right to exercise control over the appellant – where contractual provision for payment in gross, without pay as you go (PAYG) withholding and inclusive of goods and services tax (GST) – where rights and obligations of parties pursuant to the contract are consistent with revenue law and obligations of a contractor – appeal dismissed Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 340, 341, 342, 361 Cases cited: ACE Insurance Ltd v Trifunovski (2013) 209 FCR 146
Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart NV v Slatford [1953] 1 QB 248
Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education v Barclay (2012) 248 CLR 500
Branir Pty Ltd v Owston Nominees (No 2) Pty Ltd (2001) 117 FCR 424
Doyle v Sydney Steel Co Ltd (1936) 56 CLR 545
Eastern Van Services Pty Ltd v Victorian WorkCover Authority (2020) 296 IR 391
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Hollis v VabuPty Ltd (2001) 207 CLR 21
Marshall v Whittaker’s Building Supply Co (1963) 109 CLR 210
Parker v HG Innovations Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] FCA 906
Parker v HG Innovations Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 1291
Parker v HG Innovations Pty Ltd [2020] FCCA 3093
Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16
Tattsbet Ltd v Morrow (2015) 233 FCR 46
Vabu Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1996) 33 ATR 537
Division: Fair Work Division Registry: Queensland National Practice Area: Employment and Industrial Relations Number of paragraphs: 78 Date of hearing: 16 August 2021 Counsel for the Appellant: The appellant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondents: Mr R Green Solicitor for the Respondents: SMD Lawyers ORDERS
QUD 359 of 2020 BETWEEN: PHILIP PARKER
Appellant
AND: HG INNOVATIONS PTY LTD
First Respondent
ALPHA FINANCIAL SERVICES PTY LTD
Second Respondent
RIDESHARE SOLUTIONS PTY LTD
Third Respondent
ORDER MADE…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Parker v HG Innovations 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2021] FCA 1051
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the nature of the contractual relationship between Parker and HG Innovations. Key issues included whether Parker was an employee or a contractor and whether the termination of his engagement constituted adverse action. The court also considered the credibility of Parker’s testimony and how it aligned with contemporaneous documents. The primary focus was on the control HG Innovations exercised over Parker and the manner in which he was compensated, which included payment in gross and the inclusion of GST.
In dismissing the appeal, the court found that the relationship between the parties was consistent with that of a contractor rather than an employee. The contractual terms and the control exercised by HG Innovations aligned with the characteristics of a contractor. The court upheld the findings of the primary judge regarding Parker’s credibility, which were corroborated by contemporaneous documents. The court concluded that the rights and obligations under the contract were consistent with the obligations of a contractor under revenue law. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the original decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia was affirmed.
The appeal was dismissed with no orders for costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be dismissed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.