Rizk v Basseal

Rizk v Basseal was an appeal against a determination that the appellant, Mr Rizk, was not an employee of the respondents, Mr Basseal and Mr Boustany, formerly of BB Dundas Pty Ltd, a now deregistered company. The case was heard by a single judge of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia sitting in its appellate jurisdiction. Mr Rizk sought to overturn the primary judge’s finding that he was not an employee of BB Dundas, while Mr Basseal and Mr Boustany filed an interlocutory application for summary dismissal of the appeal. The court heard the appeal and the interlocutory application concurrently on 27 May 2024.

The legal issues addressed by the court included the appropriate standard of review for appeals involving the determination of employment status, the principles applicable when no written contract exists between the parties, and the status of the multifactorial test derived from the case of Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd. The court had to determine whether the primary judge had erred in applying these principles and whether the appeal should be dismissed or allowed.

The court found that the primary judge had correctly applied the principles and the multifactorial test, and there was no error in the primary judge’s reasoning or findings. The court held that the primary judge had correctly identified the contractual rights and obligations between the parties and had properly characterised the relationship. The court also noted the importance of considering all relevant circumstances, including the parties' words and conduct at the time of contract formation, to ascertain the terms of the contract. The court concluded that the appeal should be dismissed and that the interlocutory application for summary dismissal should also be dismissed, with no order as to costs.

In summary, the court dismissed Mr Rizk’s appeal and the interlocutory application filed by Mr Basseal and Mr Boustany, affirming the primary judge's decision that Mr Rizk was not an employee of BB Dundas. The court found no merit in the appeal and made no order as to costs for either party.