Scott v Jr Corney and SM Morrisey t/as Digquip

In this case, the applicant, Scott, sought to appeal against an arbitration decision which determined that he was not an employee of the respondents, Jr Corney and SM Morrissey trading as Digquip. The dispute was brought before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC). The applicant argued that he was an employee of the respondents and thus entitled to certain protections under the Fair Work Act 2009. The legal issues at hand involved determining the nature of the relationship between the applicant and the respondents and applying the relevant legal tests to ascertain whether the applicant was an employee.

The court had to decide whether the applicant was an employee of the respondents, considering the application of the indicia test as established in previous case law. The court also needed to address whether the applicant could introduce new matters on appeal, given that they were not argued at the arbitration stage. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether it should allow the applicant to cross-examine a witness, despite the refusal of leave to do so at the arbitration stage, and whether the tribunal could accept evidence from the applicant in the absence of such leave.

In confirming the Arbitrator's decision, the court held that the applicant was not an employee of the respondents, based on the application of the indicia test. The court found that the applicant was bound by the conduct of their counsel at the arbitration and was unable to introduce new matters on appeal. Additionally, the court declined to exercise its discretion to allow the applicant to cross-examine a witness, and the tribunal was not permitted to accept the applicant's evidence due to non-compliance with relevant practice directions. Consequently, the Arbitrator's determination was upheld.

The court confirmed the Arbitrator’s determination of 3 August 2015, rejecting the applicant's appeal and finding that he was not an employee of the respondents. The applicant was not allowed to introduce new matters on appeal and was bound by the conduct of their counsel at the arbitration. The application for leave to cross-examine was refused, and the tribunal could not accept the applicant's evidence due to non-compliance with the relevant practice directions.