Woolston v Aurous Ltd (Nundah Activity Centre) - [2019] FCCA 1847

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WOOLSTON v AUROUS LTD (NUNDAH ACTIVITY CENTRE)

[2019] FCCA 1847

Catchwords:
HIGH COURT AND FEDERAL COURT – Federal Circuit Court – procedure – ending proceedings early – summary disposal or stay.

EMPLOYMENT LAW – Employment relationship – ascertaining existence and nature of relationship – intention of parties.

EMPLOYMENT LAW – Employment relationship – ascertaining existence and nature of relationship – consideration.

EMPLOYMENT LAW – Employment relationship – ascertaining existence and nature of relationship – particular relationships – other cases – volunteer.

INDUSTRIAL LAW – Commonwealth – workplace relationships – employment status – whether employee.

HIGH COURT AND FEDERAL COURT – Federal Circuit Court – Procedure – costs.

Legislation:

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss.340, 342(1), 351, 548(1), 548(1A), 548(5), 570, 772
Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act1999 (Cth), s.17A

Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth), ss.46P, 46PO
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s.31A
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rr.13.10, 13.10(a)

Cases cited:

Ashby v Slipper (No.2) [2014] FCAFC 67
Australian Air Express Pty Limited v Langford (2005) 147 IR 240
Boston Commercial Services Pty Ltd v GE Capital Finance Australasia Pty Ltd (2006) 70 IPR 146
Building Workers’ Industrial Union of Australia v Odco Pty Ltd (1991) 29 FCR 104
C v Commonwealth (2015) 234 FCR 81
Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc (2002) 209 CLR 95
Fair Work Ombudsman v NSW Motel Management Services Pty Ltd [2018] FCCA 508
Forstaff & Ors v The Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (2004) 144 IR 1
Jefferson Ford Pty Ltd v Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd (2008) 167 FCR 372

Nethermere (St Neots) Ltd v Gardiner [1984] ICR 612
Paramasivam v University of New South Wales [2007] FCAFC 176
Pimlico Plumbers Ltd and another (Appellants) v Smith (Respondent) [2018] 4 All ER 641
Prior v Wood [2017] FCA 193
PZ Cussons (International) Limited v Rosa Dora Imports Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1642

Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2 QB 497
Redeemer Baptist School Ltd v Glossop [2006] NSWSC 1201

Ryan v Primesafe [2015] FCA 8
Tsilibakis v Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Ltd (No.2) [2015] FCA 1048

Applicant:

LORETTA WOOLSTON

Respondent:

AUROUS LTD (NUNDAH ACTIVITY CENTRE)

File Number:

BRG 1324 of 2018

Judgment of:

Judge Jarrett

Hearing date:

10 June 2019

Date of Last Submission:

10 June 2019

Delivered at:

Brisbane

Delivered on:

3 July 2019

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondent:

Ms Barnes

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Kennedys (Australasia) Pty Ltd

ORDERS

Pursuant to r.13.10(a) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 the initiating application filed on 27 December, 2018 be dismissed;
There be no order as to costs.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE

BRG 1324 of 2018

LORETTA WOOLSTON

Applicant

And

AUROUS LTD (NUNDAH ACTIVITY CENTRE)

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The respondent applies to summarily dismiss the applicant’s claim pursuant to s.17A of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) and…

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 Woolston v Aurous Ltd (Nundah Activity Centre) 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: [2019] FCCA 1847
Decision Date: 3 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Woolston (the applicant) brought proceedings against Aurous Ltd (the respondent) in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, seeking to recover unpaid wages and entitlements. The core of the dispute concerned whether the applicant was an employee of the respondent or a volunteer, which would determine the applicability of employment law protections and entitlements.

The primary legal issue before Judge Jarrett was to ascertain the true nature of the relationship between the applicant and the respondent. Specifically, the court was required to determine whether the applicant was engaged as an employee, thereby entitling them to statutory entitlements, or whether they were a volunteer, in which case such entitlements would not arise. This involved an examination of the intention of the parties and the presence of consideration for the work performed.

Judge Jarrett applied the established legal principles for determining employment status, which focus on the substance of the relationship rather than its form. The court considered factors such as the degree of control exercised by the respondent, the mutuality of obligations, and whether the applicant received or was entitled to receive remuneration for their services. The court found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to establish that they were an employee, noting the absence of a formal employment contract and the voluntary nature of the applicant's involvement. Consequently, the court concluded that the applicant had not established that they were an employee of the respondent.

The court ordered that the application be dismissed.

Orders