EOFY Sale · Save up to $750 off your legals · Ends 30 June

Claim offer
Selected cases

Federal Court of Australia - Full Court · [2026] FCAFC 17

Fair Work Ombudsman v Torrens University

A Full Court employment case about award construction, composite lecturing rates, marking rates and compliance notices.

Federal Court of Australia - Full Court17 Mar 2026

Plain-English explainers, not legal advice. Check the linked official source before you rely on a specific section, and get advice for your situation.

Get legal help

Start here

Quick read

  • Award wording should be applied to the work actually being paid for.
  • A Full Court employment case about award construction, composite lecturing rates, marking rates and compliance notices.

Use this to check

  • Composite rates do not automatically cover every task connected with the role.
  • Separate award rates should usually be given a real field of operation.
  • Compliance notices can be confirmed when the regulator's award construction is correct.

Decision snapshot

  1. 1

    What happened

    • A Fair Work Inspector issued Torrens University a compliance notice alleging that it failed to pay a casual academic lecturer, Ms Sophie Lucas, the Award marking rate for marking duties.
    • Ms Lucas was employed as a casual lecturer in the Design Faculty.
    • She planned, delivered and assessed entire subjects.
    • Torrens paid the casual basic lecture rate and generally did not separately pay for marking assessments in the subjects she taught, except in limited situations such as late submissions or marking students she did not teach.
  2. 2

    What the court had to decide

    • The Full Court had to decide how to construe associated working time in the Higher Education Industry Academic Staff Awards, and whether that expression ordinarily included marking subject assessments or whether separate marking rates applied.
  3. 3

    What the court decided

    • The Full Court allowed the FWO's appeal.
    • It set aside the primary orders and confirmed the compliance notice issued to Torrens, holding that associated working time did not ordinarily encompass the marking of subject assessments.

Practical impact

Practical read

  • Award wording should be applied to the work actually being paid for.
  • Employers using composite hourly rates need to know what work the rate covers and what work is separately payable.

Useful next steps

  • Composite rates do not automatically cover every task connected with the role.
  • Separate award rates should usually be given a real field of operation.
  • Compliance notices can be confirmed when the regulator's award construction is correct.
  • Internal workload models should not override award structure.
  • Employers should document which tasks are covered by each pay category.

Practical read

This case is about universities, but the operator lesson is much broader. Many businesses use rates that bundle several activities together: a call-out rate, a shift rate, a delivery rate, a sessional rate or a project rate. The risk is assuming that because some related work is bundled, all related work is covered.

The Full Court focused on the structure of the Award. A lecturing rate included one hour of delivery and associated working time. But the Award also had separate marking rates. If all subject marking by a lecturer were treated as associated working time, the separate marking rate would lose much of its practical function.

The Court held that associated working time generally covers the limited body of work associated with the lecture delivery itself, while ordinary assessment marking is usually dealt with by the marking rate.

For employers, the practical point is to audit role design against the actual industrial instrument. Do not rely on internal job descriptions alone. If the award or agreement has separate pay categories, payroll should preserve those categories. If one worker performs several tasks, the fact that the tasks feel commercially connected does not necessarily mean one rate covers them all.

Checks to run

Key points

  • List each task the employee performs and match it to the applicable award or agreement rate.
  • Identify whether a composite rate has a narrow or broad field of operation.
  • Check whether a separate allowance or rate would be made meaningless by your interpretation.
  • Keep payroll evidence showing why each category was chosen.
  • Review regulator notices by testing the underlying award construction.

Key takeaways

  • Composite rates do not automatically cover every task connected with the role.
  • Separate award rates should usually be given a real field of operation.
  • Compliance notices can be confirmed when the regulator's award construction is correct.
  • Internal workload models should not override award structure.
  • Employers should document which tasks are covered by each pay category.

Related topics

How Sprintlaw can help