Zhou v Extragreen Holidays (Aust) Pty Ltd

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ZHOU v EXTRAGREEN HOLIDAYS (AUST) PTY LTD

[2020] FCCA 3224

Catchwords:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – Court consenting to agreement of the parties to determine preliminary issue – whether applicant worked for the respondent as employee or independent contractor – work lasting from 2013 to2018 – applicant offered shifts on discrete individual basis – applicant always at liberty to decline shifts offered – consideration of relevant indicia – taken holistically clear applicants engagement was that of employee.

Cases cited:

Hollis v Vabu [2001] 207 CLR 21

Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Company Pty Ltd [1986] 160 CLR 16

Australian Industrial Relations Commission in Abdalla v Viewdaze Proprietary Limited [2003] 121 IR 215

Applicant:

XUYING ZHOU

Respondent:

EXTRAGREEN HOLIDAYS (AUST) PTY LTD

File Number:

MLG 704 of 2020

Judgment of:

Judge Burchardt

Hearing date:

27 & 28 October 2020

Date of Last Submission:

28 October 2020

Delivered at:

Dandenong

Delivered on:

30 November 2020

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr White

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Le Brun Glezakos Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr McKenna

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Macpherson + Kelley Solicitors

ORDERS

The matter be adjourned to this Court for directions before Judge Burchardt on 23 March 2021 at 9:30am.
There be general liberty to apply.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DANDENONG

MLG 704 of 2020

XUYING ZHOU

Applicant

And

EXTRAGREEN HOLIDAYS (AUST) PTY LTD

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introductory

The issue presently before the Court relates to the work performed by the applicant, Mr Zhou, for the respondent between 2013 and 2018. The question is whether that work was performed as an independent contractor or an employee.
It should be noted that at the commencement of the trial both parties through their counsel indicated that this discrete issue should be dealt with as a threshold matter. It should also be noted that the applicant, through his counsel, expressly abandoned components of his claim in which he sought civil penalties arising out of alleged adverse action. Those matters have fallen away, therefore, irrespective of the outcome of this part of the proceeding.
Although it is clear from the authorities that split trials have many risks and should only be permitted in appropriate circumstances, I had no difficulty in acceding to the application in this instance. It is plain that if the respondent is successful, a potentially very significant and time-consuming dispute that would be necessary to quantify the applicant’s various remaining claims for underpayment of wages and other matters will be avoided. It is a clear issue capable of determination.

The Main Issues Between the Parties

Much of the evidence in the case is relatively uncontroversial. There are probably three particular discrete areas of significant evidentiary controversy, which are, respectively:
a)What was said when the work relationship commenced, most particularly as to the provision or otherwise of tax file numbers or ABNs.
b)What was said at a meeting in November 2016 between the applicant and the owner of the respondent, most particularly about tax matters.
c)What was said from time to time between the applicant and a Ms Wong, to whom he reported, including particularly an occasion in 2017 when Ms Wong offered the applicant a formal contract of employment.

The Evidence Given at Court

It will be appropriate to return in part to some of the parties’ affidavit material in due course, but in the particular circumstances of the case, that material is better examined after a traverse of what the parties said at Court. What follows is taken from my notes.

The Opening and Evidence of the Applicant

Counsel for the applicant confirmed that the claim for damages and other remedies arising out of alleged adverse action was abandoned. He noted there had been an exchange of outlines of submissions and indicated that the applicant was prepared to adopt the respondent’s submissions as to what the appropriate indicia to be examined were. It was put that it was a matter of looking at the relationship as a whole. The question was whether the applicant was an employee or contractor.
The applicant was called and adopted his two affidavits as true and correct, subject to one minor change. It should be noted that what was described as a redacted affidavit was provided to the Court, and this was the document that the applicant adopted. It contained struck-through passages which were conceded to be objectionable.
Under cross-examination by counsel for the respondent, the applicant (whose evidence was given through an interpreter) confirmed that he operated a partnership with his wife which had had an ABN since 2001. It operates a chip shop in Windsor. He was asked if he had another small business, and, in particular, a milk bar, but said that was before the chip shop. That business was run by him. When asked about an ice-cream store, the applicant said that was the milk bar. It was not an ice-cream shop.
It was put to him that he had been involved with the accountants Kristy Pan and he confirmed that was his accountant. He and his wife lodged tax returns through his accountant every year. Kristy Pan had been there since the very beginning. He meets Ms Pan once a year and she prepares the returns for him and the partnership. They have them done together. When asked if he reviewed these tax returns before they were signed for lodgement, the applicant questioned whether this meant did he agree with the tax returns. He said he signs them after she has explained them to him. The review of returns is done at her office. They have a discussion.
The applicant confirmed that he drove buses and acted as a tour guide for Lucy before he commenced work with the respondent. He said he agreed that there was no written contract. It was put that he needed an HGV licence and he confirmed this. He said he had been trained. He already had an HGV licence. When asked if he had a passenger licence, he said he does not have a taxi licence. He was not sure if he had a passenger vehicle licence. He has an HGV licence which allows him to take passengers. He agreed that tours were offered to him on 24 hours’ notice. It was put to him that he could say yes or no. He responded no. “If it is okay I would say okay. If not okay I would refuse”. It would not be because he did not want to take the job, but because he was not free.
When it was put to him that he had given Lucy dates when he was not available, he disagreed. If he was not free, she would not allocate the job to him. He would tell her if he was not free on the following day. He agreed that there were different rates for different tours, because there were different sights. He agreed that he was paid tips by passengers, but not every passenger would tip. He agreed that when working for Lucy he received no sick leave, no superannuation and no annual leave.
It was put that Lucy had done work for Extragreen. Mr Zhou said that Extragreen gave jobs to Lucy and Lucy allocated them to him. He agreed that he had to wear the Extragreen uniform. It was put that the income from Lucy was treated as income for the partnership and the applicant said he combined the income from Lucy and his partner’s income to lodge his tax.
It was put that he had had no salary recorded in his tax returns for 2011/2012 save for the partnership distribution. The applicant said he had done little work for Lucy’s company during this period and some of it was paid in cash. When pressed about 2011 and 2012, he said she paid by cash. It might be a situation where the cash income was not much and therefore he did not declare his whole income. When it was put to him that he did not consider himself an employee of Lucy’s he said he considered himself a casual employee. Lucy did not declare income for him and he knew this. At that time, he was not sure all cash should be declared or not. When it was put to him that he was required to declare the income from Lucy to the ATO, Mr Zhou said that it was his understanding the employer should declare that income to the ATO for him.
Mr Zhou agreed that in 2013 he went to the Swanston Street office of Extragreen. He met Ms Yong and Sophia (Ms Wong). It was put that the meeting was at Rose Yong’s office. Mr Zhou said that firstly they were talking outside Rose’s office. Then he went into Rose Yong’s office. Halfway into that conversation Sophia came in. All of it was in Mandarin. It was put that he was told he would be paid fortnightly on submitting paperwork. The applicant denied this and said it was not mentioned. He was taken to paragraph 10 of his first affidavit, in which he had deposed to submitting a guiding fee claim form each fortnight. The applicant agreed that he had to provide a claim form every two weeks before they paid him. He agreed that Rose had told him that he needed to submit these forms each two weeks to be paid. He said that after two weeks he asked how they would pay him and they told him to submit this form.
The applicant was cross-examined about paragraph 12 of his first affidavit, in which he had asserted he had provided his tax file number to Sophia Wong. He said he offered to give his tax file number and she rejected it. She did not want it. She told him that because he was a casual he did not need to give his tax file number. He gave it to her but she did not accept it. It was put that there was no paperwork provided when he was at Swanston Street and Mr Zhou said he only received the claim form two weeks later because he wanted payment. There was no paperwork at Swanston Street and no written contract. She said that they only offered casual work. It was put that she had made it clear it was not a permanent position. The applicant said that she did not say that. (This answer was given with emphasis). It was put that he enquired if it was a permanent job and it was made clear that it was not and the applicant agreed.
The applicant was taken to paragraph 16 of his second affidavit, in which he had deposed:
I enquired if was getting permanent job to which she told me that it would be casual position.
The applicant said that the word was casual worker. He wanted a permanent job. It was put that he could equally have been called a temporary worker, but he said this was not correct. His understanding was it was a casual worker. “If they have jobs they come to me and if not they will not”. It was the same as Lucy’s company. He agreed that he was told he would have the same conditions as a casual worker as at Lucy. It was put that he was told he would have the same terms and conditions as at Lucy and he said yes, it was the same conditions as a casual worker. It was repeated that he was told it would be the same as with Lucy and the applicant responded there was one major difference. If he worked with Extragreen he had to wear the uniform and name badge, which was not the case with Lucy. He was not sure of the details. He emphasised with Rose that he wanted a permanent job and she said no.
He started work on 30 March with his first Extragreen job. It was put to him that no one told him he could not take work for other couriers and the applicant said he did not hear anything like that. It was put that he had undertaken work for Lucy, too, after starting at Evergreen. He said it was Lucy who asked him for help. This was only a very limited number of times. In five years it was a few occasions. He had one day off. It was put that he had no rostered days off and Mr Zhou said there was no scheduled timetable. Only if Extragreen had jobs they would contact him. It was put that he had worked for Lucy when she had asked him to but he said not always. Sometimes he rejected her jobs.
He was taken to paragraph 16 of his first affidavit in which he had asserted that from 2013 to 2018 he worked exclusively for Extragreen. He said the reason he also did jobs for Lucy was before that he had worked for Lucy. Her jobs came from Extragreen as well. It was put that he had undertaken separate tours for Lucy and he said this was just to help Lucy. On those occasions, Extragreen had not had jobs for him. When it was pressed that paragraph 16 of his affidavit was wrong and he had not worked exclusively for Extragreen, the applicant conceded this, saying “all right”. It was put to him again that there was nothing to stop him working for other tour companies. He said that it was just at Extragreen he worked as a casual worker. He conceded, in my view straightforwardly, that it was right that he could work for other companies. It was put that he could nominate days that he was not available but he said he did not say that. If he had something to do, for example, if he became sick, he would tell Extragreen he could not work.
It was put that he could also say that he was going on holiday. He said he was not very sure but on probably three to four occasions he notified Extragreen he had family matters or friends visiting so he could not accept jobs. There was no rule at Extragreen as to such requests that he follow. It was put that Extragreen would text him before 12 noon the day before tours. The applicant agreed but said it was not always before 12 noon. Sometimes it was in the evening. It was generally by text and he could respond yes. It was put that he could also respond no. The applicant said no. “Not by that way”. He would tell them if he had no time if he had matters to deal with. I took this to mean that he would tell them in advance. If he did not want to accept a job he would have to contact them. It was put that if he did not respond, the tour would be allocated to someone else and the applicant said he normally replied. This only happened on two or three occasions. He might not have seen the message.
The applicant was taken to paragraph 29 of his second affidavit. He said he would not refuse any tours. He wanted as much as he could get. Working full-time he worked above 30 hours in a week. Because he worked over 38 hours a week for five to six months, he should have been regarded as a full-time worker. He had to have an HGV licence, which he gave to Sophia. It was put that he also had a passenger licence but he said no. He only had to provide a heavy vehicle licence. It was an HR licence, which he agreed meant Heavy Rigid. He also had a permit to take tourists. It was put that he had a commercial passenger certificate and he agreed and said this had to be renewed every two years. This was his responsibility and at his cost. But the logbooks were paid for by Extragreen. The logbook remains with the bus but you have to fill it out if the journey is over 100 kilometres. The logbook was kept by the driver – by him.
The applicant was cross-examined about paragraph 20 of his first affidavit, in which he deposed that he did not provide invoices to Extragreen. He said this was true. He did not provide invoices to Extragreen. He was cross-examined about filling in exhibit “XYZ-2”, a monthly guiding-fee claim form dated 9 April 2013. He agreed that this was the claim form and it was his handwriting. This was the first payment paid by Extragreen. He submitted it by fax.
There are different rates for different places. The rate of pay was very low. For example, tour 6, Phillip Island, was over 10 hours and only paid $160. He confirmed that the bank details that are on this form were his. He filled out the form every two weeks and was always paid in accordance with the claim forms. He also received tips from passengers. It was put that each passenger paid $4 in cash. The applicant said the rate of tips was set by Extragreen. They told him it worked as a bonus for him. Not every passenger will pay. Some just do not pay but this is rare. Extragreen cannot chase up tips but he would report the incidents to Extragreen. The passengers have to pay $5 extra for the tour to Extragreen.
When it was put to him that he usually drove 25-seater buses he said this was most of the time, but he also drove 21 and 40-seat vehicles. It was put that they were usually about 80 per cent full, but he said the average was not so many. A chartered bus could be seven people and he only gets $35. It was put that he had received tips of almost $70,000 throughout his employment but he said this was not so much. The total of tips from 2014 to 2018 was $53,509. He was very busy for the respondent.
It was put that he met Rose and Sophia at the bus depot in late 2016. The applicant said Sophia contacted him for a meeting which took place on 9 November 2016. It was put to the applicant that he was asked if he was paying tax on his Extragreen income. The applicant denied this. He said the focus of the meeting was that he was asked to provide an ABN number. It was put to him that he was not asked to provide an ABN number, but said, “Their purpose was to get an ABN from me”. It was put that he said on this occasion that he was paying cash through the fish and chip partnership with his wife but he denied this. He told Rose he did not have a personal ABN. Rose said no worries and that their accountant would help him to get an ABN straight away. The applicant said he had declared all his income from Extragreen in his tax returns. If Extragreen pays his underpay he will go through his accountant to relodge his tax returns.
It was put to him that he asked Sophia for a statement of earnings in October 2017 and he agreed, and said this was because he wanted to purchase a car.
He conceded that he sought an income statement. He confirmed that “SW-2” was what Ms Wong had said in the email. It was put to him that that is what she had said at the meeting. The applicant denied that. He said that in the meeting of 9 November she had not said this. She sent him the statement of income. This document was the first time Extragreen ever gave him a document. For the first four years, no similar document had been given to him.
The applicant agreed that the figure of $51,594.02 from “SW-2” was correct, according to his records. The applicant said that according to his records, between 1 July 2016 and 30 June 2017 he received $47,247 from Extragreen. This was exclusive of tips and he did receive tips.
It should be noted that given that the cross-examination appeared to be turning toward matters which might expose Mr Zhou to self-incrimination in one way or another, I raised this issue with the parties over the luncheon adjournment. The applicant indicated he was willing to answer questions voluntarily and I gave him his certificate accordingly.
The applicant confirmed that his income was $47,247. He combined his income from Extragreen with his income from his wife and they were declared together. No separate amount for tips was declared. He was cross-examined about exhibit “XYZ-2” to his second affidavit. It was put that the total figures revealed from 2016 to 2017 was $51,364. The applicant said that possibly when he lodged his tax he missed the tour guide fees from Extragreen. He said that “we are talking about driver’s income”.
In 2015 to 2016 the amount from Extragreen as a driver was $51, 395, which also included income as a tourist guide. His tax return was done through the partnership. Tips were not included because it was industrial practice not to and they were not declared. It was put that the figure from 2015 to 2016 was $56,209. He said that was the figure including the tips. Some tips were included that year. Tips from charter bus tours were included. It was put that he had not declared $4,800 in 2015 to 2016. He said he had not received the financial statement for that time.

The applicant said he received the proposed contract from the respondent on 26 May 2017 but did not sign it. He was taken to paragraph 30 of his first affidavit and said that they reduced his work hours gradually. There is significant work in the middle of the year.
It was put that in late 2017 he met Ms Wong and discussed full-time employment. He said that was right. This was in October 2017 and this was the first time it was offered to him. He was not offered a bonus. It was an allowance or subsidy. This was only advised by Sophia to him orally. There was no contract. It was put that exhibit “XYZ-1” to his first affidavit was an extract from the contract of 26 May 2017. He said that “XYZ-1” to the second affidavit was the contract. It was put that these were not the same document. One was for an employee and one was for contractors. He was nonetheless adamant that he was given exhibit “XYZ-1” to the first affidavit. He did not recall the exact date. It was put to him that this was part of an employment contract and the applicant said that that single page was given to him by the company but he did not recall the date or year it was given to him.
It was put that on 21 February 2018 he was told that the business was outsourced to VIP Bus Services and the applicant conceded that they told him that. It was put that he was offered work with VIP, but he said this was not from the company. Sophia and Anne told him the business was outsourced and asked if he would like to go to VIP. They asked him to give an ABN number.
The applicant agreed that exhibit “XYZ-4” to his first affidavit, the letter of termination dated 21 February 2018, was sent to him. He said he refused VIP straight away. He was only prepared to consider such a transfer once compensation was sorted out.
In re-examination, Mr Zhou confirmed that the milk bar and fish and chip shop which had an ABN started well before Extragreen. He had not worked in the fish and chip shop. There was only one ABN for the whole partnership business.
The applicant confirmed that he filled out exhibit XYZ2 to his first affidavit. No ABN or tax file number was ever entered on that form (or any of the subsequent ones). When asked how he decided how much to claim, the applicant said that figures were given to him orally by a staff member at Extragreen which was specified by his trip. He confirmed that the documents constituting his tax returns were the only ones that he had. He had no BAS statements.
He confirmed that most of his work for Oo (Lucy) Lu was for Extragreen. When asked if, in the very first meeting, the question of hours was talked about, he said no, this was not mentioned. When asked how often he had helped out Lucy after starting with Extragreen, he said there was only a limited number of jobs on his day off. They did not take much time; half a day. He had no other jobs except Extragreen or Lucy. He had completed at least four logbooks for Extragreen. He said he had told them that he did not have an ABN. They said their accountant would help. He had said he did not want this because he was still working for them.

The Evidence of the Respondent

Counsel did not open the case, bearing in mind their written submissions filed, and called Ms Oo Lu.

The Evidence of Oo (Lucy) Lu

Ms Lu confirmed that she is a businessperson and that her affidavit was true and correct. She made it clear what is casual and what is a contractor. When asked what the word in Mandarin is for casual worker, she said (and I readily concede my phonetic rendition may be inaccurate) lin shi gong.

Under Cross-Examination

Ms Lu agreed that the applicant had been engaged by Australian North Group and Extragreen. These were separate businesses. It was correct that the pattern of work for both companies was random, but on days when he was working for Golden City Coach there was no uniform. Golden City (which I understand to have been a company owned by Ms Lu) did not have either uniforms or name tags. Australian North (also owned by Ms Lu) did not either.
Australian North and Golden Coach had no banners or markings on their buses. If they hired buses out they would have Extragreen numbers on the bus. The travel agencies for whom they worked do not like having markings. It was put to Ms Lu that the travel agencies want to keep control of their brand by having their own markings but Ms Lu did not know why they did this. She only did business for her company.
There were a lot of other companies than Extragreen that she had done driving for. These used both her companies. She said it has been a long time since Mr Zhou provided her with service. The allocation of a job was not her responsibility. She was not entirely sure if Mr Zhou had done work apart from Extragreen. She could not remember clearly a Broadway Travel Agency. There were a lot of drivers and tour guides who would remember better. Their route was nothing to do with her, apart from paying fees, and tips were nothing to do with her.
She was cross-examined about paragraph 13 of her affidavit in which she had deposed it was very rare to engage drivers/tour guides as employees. She said they were usually employed on a temporary basis. She had not employed any. She could not remember exactly when Mr Zhou went to Extragreen. He left and went to work for someone else.
Ms Lu confirmed that she ceased operating her companies in about 2013 due to her reduced workload. She had contacted Mr Zhou for help. This was just for personal matters. She had asked others also. This was for little jobs but she could not remember very clearly how many times this had occurred. Mr Zhou had not contacted her for work. Sometimes there were private, little jobs and she needed someone temporarily.
In re-examination, Ms Lu could not remember the exact amount of work she had performed for Extragreen but it was quite a lot.

The Evidence of Sophia Wong

Ms Wong is a personal assistant to the managing director of Extragreen. She adopted her affidavit as true and correct. In evidence-in-chief she confirmed that she provided Mr Zhou in about July 2017 with a contractual agreement to formalise the relationship between the parties.
Taken to exhibit “XYZ-1” to the applicant’s second affidavit, Ms Wong confirmed that the first page was in her handwriting but the rest of it was the contract to which she referred. It was provided to the applicant on about 26 May 2017.
Under cross-examination, Ms Wong confirmed that she had seen the spreadsheet, being “XYZ-2” to Mr Zhou’s second affidavit. She saw this when it was sent electronically. She did not dispute the entry for 28 February 2014. Mr Zhou worked for them in the year ending June 2014. She understood the six-year limit to possible claims. When it was put that the applicant had worked the hours indicated in the spreadsheet, Ms Wong accepted the accuracy of the schedule. She accepted the schedule overall.
Ms Wong confirmed that the exhibit “XYZ-2” to the applicant’s first affidavit was the form required from the applicant. It was a monthly guiding-fee claim form. She accepted that Mr Zhou had a name tag with George and Extragreen banner on it and Chinese translations on the other side. The buses had the Extragreen banner. Photographs of the applicant driving in such a uniform were tendered as exhibit “A-1”. The applicant was always driving these buses and wearing the uniform. He had to wear the uniform. He had undertaken the guides’ welcome on behalf of Extragreen. They had to say it was Extragreen, not them.
Extragreen bought buses in 2012. She had read Ms Lu’s affidavit but she only knew about Extragreen buses. She never viewed Ms Lu’s buses. They received complaints from customers when they used Ms Lu’s buses. This was one of the reasons Extragreen bought buses. It was to operate their own fleet. There were four employees by 2012 and also contractors. All of their buses had signage but one third of the fleet have different signage. Two thirds have Extragreen markings. Extragreen started as a travel agency in 1994 but only started bus operations in 2001-2002. This increased in 2012 when a fuller service was offered.
Ms Wong was cross-examined about her first meeting with the applicant. She agreed that they talked about the working procedures and the company. She could not remember what she explained as it was a long time ago. He gave her two documents to photocopy. She did so and gave them back to him. The applicant had been driving for Extragreen prior to that meeting. They had both employees and contractors. Both were able to collect tips. The amount was different between specialist drivers who drive large buses, because they have to share with the tour guide. Tipping is separate to wages. It does not affect award entitlements. This was the same for contractors and employees.
Ms Wong confirmed that there was nothing on the claim form as to an ABN or tax file number. The applicant never submitted an ABN or tax file number. The first time an ABN was used was towards the end of 2017. She confirmed that “XYZ-3” to the first affidavit of the applicant, being a recipient-created tax invoice dated 27 December 2017, was the first time an ABN was used. This was the first ABN and it was four and a half years into the employment.
She conceded that she had obtained the ABN online but she could not recall a conversation alleged by the applicant to have occurred in December 2017 in paragraph 35 of his second affidavit. She could not recall that conversation at all. She got the ABN online because he did not provide it himself. He told them he did not have a personal ABN. She confirmed that the exhibit “XYZ-3” was emailed to the applicant by an accountant. It did not come from her. She provided the ABN to the accountant.
Ms Wong was cross-examined about “XYZ-2” to Mr Zhou’s first affidavit, being the monthly guiding-fee claim form. She said they did not use this for employees. It was put to her that Mr Zhou had offered to give his tax file number, but Ms Wong said she did not accept she was told this. She said she did not recall and could not say one way or the other. She agreed there was no reference to GST in exhibit “XYZ-2”. She agreed that this was always the case. GST was also not mentioned in exhibit “XYZ-3”, being the recipient-created tax invoice dated 27 December 2017. She said that GST was never mentioned.
Ms Wong was taken to exhibit “XYZ-1” to the applicant’s second affidavit. It was put that Mr Zhou refused to sign it. Ms Wong said this was a draft copy which was given to the applicant to read. It was the first time they had given him an official contract. Charges were set by Extragreen. There was no GST. Extragreen never asked the applicant to account for GST. Ms Wong confirmed that the rates for tours were set by Extragreen. They were never negotiated with Mr Zhou. He never requested different wages for these visits. He complied with Extragreen’s rates. Extragreen had the right to change routes and rates when the need arose.
It was put that Mr Zhou never rejected a shift because he was working as a driver elsewhere. Ms Wong said, for contractors, they can decline the job. They do not need to provide reasons. She was never informed he was somewhere else. Shifts are usually offered the day before. If he accepted, he had to do it himself. It was put that Mr Zhou could not subcontract. Ms Wong said it is allowed. The contractors can do this. It is restricted to the group of Extragreen contractors. He could not engage somebody outside Extragreen. If he was assigned, he always did the tour himself. It was put that the applicant was sometimes unavailable. Ms Wong said he did not report to her. He informed the team if he was sick or on holiday or had a family commitment.
Ms Wong confirmed that Mr Zhou was already driving for Extragreen through Ms Lu. Ms Wong confirmed this was so. Extragreen did not make the first approach. He was introduced to them by Lucy. They had a lot of complaints about Lucy and she arranged for him to come and interview with them.
Ms Wong was cross-examined about “XYZ-3” to the second affidavit. She said she could not read Mandarin. She sent this on 26 March 2014. It was sent to the applicant in Mandarin. She was disappointed that the applicant was not following company guidelines as the driver.
She was taken to clause 3.3 of “XYZ-1” (the draft contract), describing the relationship as one of principal and independent contractor. She said this was drafted by the legal team. It was put to her that these words were not used at the initial interview and Ms Wong agreed. This is a legal term. She agreed that this was the first time that this phraseology was given to the applicant. It was put that the same services are provided whether you are a contractor or an employer because you do the same job. Ms Wong said, “Kind of. I do not have the contract. Licence requirements are the same for contractors and employees”.
It was put to Ms Wong that the applicant had not received the contract, being exhibit “SW-3” to her affidavit. Ms Wong said he was provided. It was put that she had merely explained the terms, and Ms Wong said he would have received a copy. This copy is in her computer dated 29 September 2017. His first affidavit, exhibit 1, is the employee schedule. This was the first time the applicant was offered full-time employment. He had asked for full-time before and was told that this could not be accommodated.
Work was outsourced four months’ later to Top VIP Coaches. She did not know how long before that the outsourcing process started. She was not aware of outsourcing at the time of this offer. There are similar release clauses in both the contractor and employee agreement. She denied that this was the reason for the contractor agreement. She denied that it was the real reason for the employment agreement. She said he had been asking for full-time for quite a while.
When asked why the applicant was offered an employment contract in 2017, four months before the work was outsourced, Ms Wong said this was because he had asked for full-time on many occasions. He was working far less towards the end of 2017. Ms Wong was cross-examined about the terms of the contract agreement and said that a number of the requirements of employees were already required.
It was put that in the initial interview, the term used was casual driver but she said she was not sure if the word casual was used. She agreed that he was sent the claim form two weeks after he started. He was told to fill it out. She agreed that the applicant’s work exceeded 38 hours a week and that he worked more than five days in peak seasons. She was unable to agree with the hours asserted. The exhibit “XYZ-1” to the first affidavit (the list of journeys and hours) was after April 2017. She could say this because item 39 started in April 2017.
It was put that she had offered the applicant $10,000 as compensation for unpaid entitlements. Ms Wong said she was aware he was offered $10,000 but could not recall if it was her or someone else. It was not offered to get an agreement with the applicant. She confirmed that Top VIP Coaches did make an offer of employment. When asked about the relationship between Extragreen and Top VIP, Ms Wong said that the lawyers drew up the agreement and she had no access to it.

The Evidence of Ms Yong

Ms Yong adopted her affidavit as true and correct. She confirmed that before 2012 they had used Ms Lu’s buses and others also. Lu was the majority. She met the applicant through Ms Lu and other drivers also. She confirmed her understanding of custom and industry practice was that Chinese customers prefer to pay a low price for the tour and pay tips upon satisfactory completion. It was put that there was no guarantee of tips from her but she disagreed. It was in the contract.
When taken to exhibit “XYZ-1” to the second affidavit of the applicant, being the contractor agreement, Ms Yong said that this was done by Sophia. She is the managing director and does not deal with this. It was put that tipping was not guaranteed in the schedule to the agreement, but Ms Yong said that if they do not receive the tip they will come back to the company and claim. It is very unlikely that clients do not pay. She was unable to say if it was the same phrase in employment contracts.
She confirmed that Extragreen bought buses in 2012. They had two drivers and then two more. The also had contractors. They used another bus company at the same time. They still engaged with other companies to run their tours. They run five to eight tours per day. She does not run daily engagement of drivers. She confirmed that the applicant was offered an employment contract in late 2017.
Exhibit “SW-3” to Ms Wong’s affidavit was prepared by Sophia. She had not seen this. She is the managing director and is mainly concerned with sales. It was put that employees were required to clean buses and contractors also. Ms Yong said they engaged cleaners to clean the bus. They do not require drivers to do this. They have a bus-wash machine and cleaners in the evening. Maintenance of buses was by Extragreen, not the drivers. Contractors have to bring their own licence. When asked if any additional equipment was required of drivers, Ms Yong said they are bus drivers and they do not need any tools.
Ms Yong was cross-examined about paragraph 21 of her affidavit. She confirmed that she heard other drivers talking about George’s tax. A few drivers talked about it. She denied making this up. She is a managing director and JP and would not lie. I should make it clear that this evidence was given with conviction and I accept it. Otherwise, she would not have called him for a meeting. She is the managing director.
He used the words contractor’s income. She told him he needed to pay tax on his contractor’s earnings. He said that he paid through his fish and chip shop. She confirmed that in late 2017 Sophia asked her, because the applicant was always asking about money. So they would give him a full-time position and a $10,000 bonus. He rejected this. He wanted half a million. He was offered $10,000 because he had been working since 2013. He was very rude and did not accept. She had not offered $10,000 to get him to sign the contract. He said half a million. When it was put he had told her he had lost wages for four and a half years, Ms Yong did not remember. She is 70. She does not remember. But Sophia got her permission to pay $10,000. The tax issue in 2016 was serious.
She had done the initial interview when the applicant was engaged. This was in Mandarin with some English. It was put that “contractor” was never said in the initial interview. Ms Yong said they did. She said they offered the same terms as Lucy. “Our salary would be higher”. She talks with Lucy all the time and knows what he got from Lucy. She always put him down as a contractor. She did not know if the applicant’s hours reduced in 2017. She never told the team to give the applicant less work. It was their peak season and they needed experienced drivers.
When it was put that the applicant was offered the contractor agreement in May 2017, Ms Yong said that it was not her job. She cannot remember. It was put that the applicant told her he would not sign agreements because of the indemnities. She did not remember. The agreement was not done by them. They engaged lawyers to draft it. She looks after marketing. Sophia is the human resources manager. He had not told her he had refused to sign because of the indemnity clause. She only had one conversation in 2016. She had emphasised tax on tips.

The Parties’ Affidavits

I do not propose to traverse the parties’ affidavits in great detail. I do propose to traverse some of the salient points of disagreement, however. In his first affidavit at paragraph 9, the applicant deposed:
I commenced employment with Extragreen on or about 30 March 2013. I was not given a contract or form or any written document recording the terms of my employment.

At paragraph 12 he deposed:
At the commencement of my employment I provided my tax file number to Sophia Wong. I have declared to the Australian Taxation Office all of the income that I received from Extragreen and I lodged annual income taxation returns for each year of my employment with Extragreen. I did not give Extragreen an ACN or ABN.
At paragraph 26 he deposed:
At the commencement of my employment I was told by Extragreen that I was a casual worker. I was never told by Extragreen that I was an independent contractor. There was never any letter or document provided to me stating that I was a contractor. I was always under the belief that I was an employee of Extragreen.
At paragraph 28, Mr Zhou deposed:
On 9 November 2016, Rose Yong and Sophia Wong met me at the bus depot early in the morning and asked me to provide an Australian Business Number (ABN). I did not have a personal ABN and did not give them an ABN.
At paragraph 30, Mr Zhou deposed:
On or about 26 May 2017, Sophia Wong sent me a new Contractor Agreement to sign. The Contractor Agreement did not record any ABN on it. The Contract contained a provision 2.2 stating that upon signing I was releasing Extragreen from any future claims that I had or may have for unpaid wages and entitlements relating to my employment. I always believed I was an employee and did not agree to alter my employer/employee relationship and refused to sign the agreement.
At paragraph 33, Mr Zhou deposed:
In late 2017, Sophia Wong contacted me and offered to give me $10,000 as compensation for being underpaid wages, leave entitlements, and superannuation, which I refused as it was well below the amount I believed Extragreen owed me. She also offered me a new full-time contract of employment with Extragreen.
At paragraph 34, Mr Zhou deposed to Extragreen obtaining his family’s ABN and using it, something it should be noted Ms Wong herself agreed with in her evidence.

The Affidavit of Ms Yong

At paragraphs 18-19, Ms Yong deposed:
Before George began performing work for Extragreen directly, I met with him to interview him. Ms Wong was also present at this meeting. At this interview, which was in Mandarin, I told George that Extragreen would like to engage him as a contractor on the same arrangement that he had with Ms Lu. George agreed with all the terms including that the arrangement was to be on the same terms and conditions as his engagement with Ms Lu.
During the interview, we discussed that George would be paid weekly or fortnightly after submitting his invoice, that he would have to pay his own taxes, and that he would receive tips as additional compensation, remuneration as agreed. George says that he agrees to this arrangement. At the meeting, George did not provide his tax file number.
At paragraph 22, Ms Yong deposes to her discussions about tax in later 2016 and deposed:
During this meeting, I had a conversation with George in Mandarin in which I asked him if he paid tax on his income as a contractor. He replied firmly that he did pay tax through the fish and chip shop as a contractor’s income. I reminded him that he was a contractor, and, as a contractor, he needed to pay tax on his earnings. He told me that he knew this and that he did report his tax as a contractor.

The Affidavit of Ms Wong

At paragraphs 15-16 of her affidavit, Ms Wong deposed:
The meeting between Ms Yong and George occurred at Ms Yong’s office in Swanston Street, Melbourne. Ms Yong called me into her office where she and George were. The meeting was quite brief and I recall that I remained standing the entire time. The meeting was conducted in Mandarin. During the meeting, Ms Yong told George that his engagement with Extragreen would be on the same terms and conditions as his arrangement with Ms Lu. She said that he would be paid weekly or fortnightly upon him submitting his invoice.
In his affidavit at paragraph 6, George says that I interviewed him for employment at Extragreen. Although I was present at this meeting, I said very little and do not agree that I interviewed him. In his affidavit at paragraph 12, George says that at the commencement of his employment he provided his tax file number (TFN) to me. This is not true.
At paragraph 17, Ms Wong deposed:
George was not given a written agreement which set out the terms and conditions of his engagement.
At paragraph 33, Ms Wong deposed:
In or around late 2016, Ms Yong, George and I met at the bus depot. At this meeting, Ms Yong questioned George about his taxes. Ms Yong told George that she was concerned that he was not reporting his tax to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). George told Ms Yong and I that he reported his taxes through his wife’s fish and chip shop. In this meeting, neither I nor Ms Yong asked George for his Australian Business Number.
At paragraphs 35 and 36, Ms Wong deposed:
In or about July 2017, I provided George with a contractor agreement to formalise the relationship between the parties.
George refused to sign the contractor agreement.
At paragraph 44, Ms Wong deposed:
On 25 October 2017 I sent an email to George, reminding him of his legal responsibility to lodge his income tax return by 31 October, and to disclose all tips received. I attached to that email a letter addressed to him indicating gross payments from Extragreen to him of $51,594.02 for the previous year.
At paragraphs 51-52, Ms Wong deposed:
I do recall meetings with George where he asked to be employed by Extragreen on a full-time basis. Each time George made this request, I said that Extragreen could not accommodate his request.
In or around October 2017, I met George at the bus depot after his return from a tour and offered him full-time employment. I provided him a hard copy of an employment agreement. That document was dated 29 September 2017. George rejected that offer.

The Second Affidavit of Mr Zhou

At paragraphs 5 and 6, Mr Zhou deposed:
After finishing with Lucy in mid-March 2013 I visited Extragreen offices ..... with Ms Yong and ..... and Sophia Wong met me in the office. I told her about the purpose of my visit and she asked me about my driving licence category and driver accreditation which I showed her and she took copies.
She explained to me a few basic things about the tours and told me that I would be paid different fixed amounts for different tours according to their destination. I enquired if I was getting a permanent job, to which she told me that it would be a casual position.
Meanwhile, Ms Rose called me in the office and we had a few minutes’ conversation...I again enquired if I could get a permanent job, to which she replied in the negative and said it is a casual position. In both meetings, at no time was I told I was being hired as a contractor and there was no mention of Lucy’s name.
At paragraph 10, Mr Zhou deposed:
In response to the alleged discussions with me about taxation at paragraph 21 and paragraph 22, this is all a completely baseless story.
At paragraph 11, he went on:
On 9 November 2016 I went to the depot around 9 am to start my work. I found Rose and Sophia present there in the office. They called me in and asked me to provide my ABN to the company. I told them that I personally don’t have any ABN no and therefore cannot provide one. They tried to convince me to get one and told me that it was very easy to get one from the ATO by going online and they could help me to get one. I refused the offer and told them I don’t need to get an ABN number because I am an employee with Extragreen and have already given my TFN no.

The Relevant Test

The respondent’s written submissions articulate at paragraphs 6-8 what is said to be the position distilled from the relevant authorities. Given that the applicant’s oral submissions expressly concede that this is at least a sufficiently accurate description, I propose to set it out in full and to have regard to it.
There does not appear to be any significant dispute between the parties as to the proper approach to determining this question. The authorities emphasise the need to have regard to a variety of criteria to assess the “totality of the relationship”: see Hollis v Vabu [2001] 207 CLR 21 at [44] per Mason J; Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Company Pty Ltd [1986] 160 CLR 16 (Stevens v Brodribb) at [35] - [37] per Wilson and Dawson JJ.
The criteria or indicia to which the Court should have regard have been reaffirmed by courts and tribunals on multiple occasions. It is submitted that the summary of these provided by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in Abdallah v Viewdaze Pty Ltd [2003] 121 IR 215 (Abdallah v Viewdaze) continues to provide an accurate and useful tool to consider whether a worker is properly an employee or an independent contractor. This is so, despite the fact that Wilson and Dawson JJ in Stevens v Brodribb at 37 cautioned against any attempt to list the relevant indicia.
In providing a summary of the law on distinguishing employees from independent contractors, the Full Bench of the Commission in Abdalla v Viewdaze noted that the terms and terminology of the contract law will always be important, before going on to identify the specific indicia:
(a) Whether the putative employer exercises, or has the right to exercise, control over the manner in which work is performed, place of work, hours of work and the like;
(b) Whether the worker performs work for others (or has a genuine and practical entitlement to do so);
(c) Whether the worker has a separate place of work and/or advertises his or her services to the world at large;
(d) Whether the worker provides or maintains significant tools or equipment;
(e) Whether the work can be delegated or subcontracted;
(f) Whether the putative employer has the right to suspend or dismiss the worker;
(g) Whether the putative employer presents the worker to the world at large as an emanation of its business;
(h) Whether income tax is deducted from income tax paid to the worker;
(i) Whether the worker is remunerated by periodic wage or salary or by reference to the completion of tasks;
(j) Whether the workers were provided with paid holiday or sick leave;
(k) Whether the work involves a profession, trade or distinct calling on the part of the person engaged;
(l) Whether the workers created goodwill or saleable assets in the course of their work; and
(m) Whether the worker spends a significant proportion of his remuneration on business expenses.
Unsurprisingly, the helpful oral submissions of counsel tended to concentrate on those aspects of these indicia which it was said favoured their position. Counsel for the respondent did submit, correctly in my view, that in addressing the indicia it is not a cricket score. Particular significance was given by the respondent to the fact that the applicant was never required to work and always had a complete capacity simply to not accept the work that was offered to him.
It was submitted that the minor differences of factual disputation were not determinative of the matter and criticism was made of what was said to be somewhat cute expressions of some of the evidence.

The Court’s Findings about the Matter

I should make it clear that all of those persons who gave evidence struck me as good witnesses, if I may use that phrase. They were all directly responsive to the questions put and without exception it seemed to me that they made concessions that were there to be made. Having said this, a number of the issues about which questions were being asked are now a long time ago. Interviews in 2013, or even 2016 or 2017, are not recent. To the extent that I do not accept one or the other party’s accounts, this is because the lapse of time, taken with a natural tendency to reconstruct events in accordance with what is now seen to be desirable, may have caused some element of error.
I make the following findings about the material matters that are the subject of dispute.
The first is the nature of the engagement that took place in 2013. As I find, Mr Zhou had been working for Extragreen through their hiring of Ms Lu’s buses for some time. They obviously knew him sufficiently well to have called him George, even by 2013. There is no question that Mr Zhou attended Extragreen’s office in Swanston Street. Mr Zhou’s account, which detailed who was where and when (I have not gone into all the details but they will be in the transcript) was given with considerable conviction.
I accept his assertion that what he was told was that he was being offered work on the same terms and conditions as he had with Ms Lu. That is what in fact happened, save that perhaps his pay went up somewhat. He was certainly given no formal documentation to suggest that he was either an employee or a contractor and, as I find it, there was simply no discussion of this.
Everybody knew perfectly well what was going to happen. Extragreen was moving away from using Ms Lu’s business to using their own buses, or at least other buses than Ms Lu’s to the extent that they subcontracted.
I do not find and do not accept that the applicant offered his tax file number. The subject simply did not come up.
I accept that he was told his employment would be casual. Having seen and heard the parties give their evidence and having regard to what they had to say in their affidavits, I think that the parties have, all of them, tended now to ascribe a measure of formality that did not obtain. All that was happening was that Mr Zhou was going to go from driving for Extragreen for Ms Lu to driving for Extragreen for Extragreen. They knew this. The only things he did not know was the basis on which he would be paid, and he was clearly told that he would need to submit a form to obtain payment. That is what he in fact did.
It should also be noted that the descriptor of the employment as casual was, in fact, in some senses not so very far from the truth. The arrangements were that Mr Zhou would be notified, usually 24 hours in advance, of a possible tour the next day and he could either take it or not as he wished.
This informal arrangement involving the submission of the fortnightly work claims by Mr Zhou continued unremarkably until 2016.
Insofar as there was a discussion about tax in late 2016, I accept Ms Yong’s evidence that for her as managing director to meet a driver would have been unusual. I accept that something must have provoked this, although I am not concerned as to what it was. She plainly told Mr Zhou that he was required to pay tax on all his earnings and he equally plainly told her that he did.
I note that Ms Wong has denied that the applicant was asked by either her or Ms Yong for his ABN. Nonetheless, by no more than a year later, Ms Wong took it upon herself to obtain the applicant’s fish and chip shop ABN and thereafter started using it. I accept the applicant’s evidence that he was asked for an ABN and told them that he did not have one but that he had declared all income for tax through his fish and chip shop on this occasion.
It seems to me to be common cause that the applicant was offered the contractor agreement in 2017 and rejected it. He was also clearly offered $10,000 by Ms Wong (she said she did not remember if it was her or not, but Mr Zhou does) and he rejected it. It seems equally clear from Ms Yong’s evidence that this was known to her, because she described his failure to accept it as very rude and noted that he was seeking half a million dollars.
Thereafter, Ms Wong offered the applicant a contract as an employee. It still contained a release clause. It makes little sense for this offer to have been made for any reason other than to seek to obtain a release. Mr Zhou had asked for an employee contract on a number of occasions but had been told it was not available. By this stage his work was significantly declining as is apparent from his schedules, which it should be noted were fully accepted as accurate by Ms Wong. This was a busy time of year and they needed drivers. Why Mr Zhou was not getting it when he wanted it (an assertion on his part I accept) is obvious. It was because he was perceived to have claims against the company.
Against these findings I come to the indicia earlier indicated. Extragreen plainly exercised control over the manner in which Mr Zhou performed his work, where he worked, and his hours. True it is that as a driver/tour guide there was some measure of flexibility presumably available to him in exactly how he took people to places like Phillip Island and the rest. Nonetheless, where he had to go was not up to him. The hours that it took were not up to him. They were task-specific. The work that he had to do, namely drive the bus and provide commentary, was clearly denoted by Extragreen in sufficient outline, a least, for Mr Zhou to know what he had to do.
Mr Zhou did perform a very small amount of work, as I find, for Ms Lu. I accept his evidence that these were only a handful of occasions over the many years of his engagement with Extragreen. They are, in the scheme of things, in my view, irrelevant. He did not, in effect, perform work for others.
Mr Zhou did not have a separate place of work and did not advertise his services to the world at large.
Mr Zhou did not provide and maintain significant tools or equipment. The logbooks were provided to him and he had to fill them out, but to describe these as significant tools or equipment would be risible. I note that he did not have to clean his bus, a task which I accept was done either by machine or by cleaners engaged by Extragreen.
Mr Zhou could not delegate his work or subcontract it. He could seek to allot it to other Extragreen workers, but he could not do so with anybody outside that pool.
Extragreen had no right to suspend Mr Zhou. They could, of course, not offer him work, but that is not suspension. Both sides had the capacity to bring the engagement to an end and, indeed, on one view, each discrete journey formed a new period of engagement in itself.
There is no doubt that Extragreen presented Mr Zhou to the world at large as an emanation of its business. He was required to wear a uniform and certainly in all but a very small handful of cases he was required to drive buses which had the Extragreen logo in both Roman and Mandarin script.
No income tax was deducted from the remuneration paid to Mr Zhou. Not all his income was directly generated, in one sense, by Extragreen at all. It consisted of tips, although I accept Ms Yong’s evidence that any shortfall was routinely claimed by drivers. I accept that Ms Yong told the applicant to address his taxation responsibilities in 2016 and I also accept that Mr Zhou told her on that occasion that he was indeed properly doing so through his fish and chip business. Indeed, while the accounts of the business that are before the Court (they were not formally tendered),do not show anything significant in the way of wages for the years that Mr Zhou was engaged, this reflects no more than the usual artful efforts of the accountants. Something was sought to be made during the currency of the proceeding as to the extent to which Mr Zhou had declared his earnings by way of tips to the ATO. I strongly suspect that he did not. In the end, however, that is a matter between him and the ATO.
Mr Zhou was not remunerated by periodic wage or salary. He was paid by reference to the completion of tasks. This did not, in fact, change even when the, as I find, bogus receipts first started to be used in 2017. It seems to me quite clear that the receipts were generated by Extragreen or its agent.
Mr Zhou was never provided with paid holidays or sick leave. He simply either accepted the work offered to him or he did not. When it did not suit him for any reason, including other commitments, he simply did not take it.
This work did not involve a profession, trade or distinct calling on the part of Mr Zhou. True it is that he had to be able to drive the requisite vehicles and to speak in Mandarin and to know enough about where he was taking his tours to do the commentary. To elevate this to some particularly refined set of skills would in my view be a step too far.

Clearly, Mr Zhou created no goodwill or saleable assets for himself in the course of his work but, as earlier indicated, as an emanation of the company it was presumably intended that he do so for Extragreen.
Mr Zhou did not spend any significant proportion of his remuneration on business expenses. All he had to do was renew his driving licence, in the scheme of things a trivial cost.
It is apparent, I think, taking the evidence as a whole, that the question of Mr Zhou’s status was canvassed from time to time, most particularly between him and Ms Wong. She was, after all, the person who was the Human Resources function of the company.
It is clear that Mr Zhou asked from time to time to be given a contract as an employee and was told no until late 2017. The tension between the parties finds a reflection in the fact that Ms Wong abstracted, so to speak, Mr Zhou’s ABN following his failure or refusal to give it to her. The creation of the new forms of so-called receipt was plainly an attempt to buttress the respondent’s position. By this stage, the respondent was well aware, because the evidence of Ms Yong and Ms Wong is clear, that the applicant had substantial potential claims against Extragreen. That is why he was offered $10,000. That is also why he was asked to sign both the contractor’s agreement and, subsequently, the employee agreement which contained release clauses (the true value of which might well be a matter of debate, given their terms).
If one looks at the schedule “XYZ-2” to the applicant’s second affidavit, the pattern of work, which, I repeat, was fully accepted by Ms Wong, speaks for itself. Mr Zhou was working between 2014 and 2017 for long hours and, effectively, all the time. While it is technically true that he did not have to accept, and Extragreen did not have to offer, a single engagement, the pattern that emerges could scarcely be clearer.
He was working full-time in an engagement with Extragreen. He had to go where Extragreen told him to. He had to drive their buses and wear their uniform. He had no control himself, in any meaningful sense, of what he did. While it is, of course, true that there was no formal contract and that the tax affairs of all concerned seem to me to be somewhat opaque, the mere fact that Mr Zhou could have refused the work ignores the practical reality. The fact is he was taking the work. He wanted it.
I repeat that I accept that this is not a scorecard. There are aspects of the engagement of Mr Zhou that would have been consistent with an independent contractor. Taken as a whole, however, the evidence could simply not be clearer. The true characterisation of this relationship is one of employer and employee.

Conclusion

For the above reasons, I am of the firm view that the engagement of Mr Zhou by Extragreen was, at all times, in substance, that of employee and employer and not that of independent contractor. The parties have agreed that this preliminary issue should be determined first. I will hear from the parties as to how they wish to progress the matter further.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and twenty-six (126) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Burchardt

Associate:

Date: 30 November 2020

[2020] FCCA 3224

30 November 2020

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Employment Law

Contract Law

Legal Concepts

Contract Formation

Intention

Offer and Acceptance

Remedies