Business Law Library & Tracker
Employment & Workplace
Employment, contractor, workplace policy and Fair Work obligations from an employer perspective.
Sources last reviewed 2 June 2026
Published law explainers
308
Curated from a much larger legal corpus
Topics
11
Plain-English clusters
Published case explainers
663
Selected from thousands of decisions
Tracked updates
11
New, amended & reviewed
These are plain-English explainers, not legal advice. They are a good starting point, but check the linked official source before you rely on a specific section, and get advice for your situation.
Talk to a lawyerLegislation
Fair Work Act 2009 - Declaration under subsection 388(1) - Small Business Fair Dismissal Code
Fair Work Act 2009
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)
Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic)
Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic)
Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (NT)
Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (NT)
Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (ACT)
Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (ACT)
Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW)
Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW)
Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld)
Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld)
Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA)
Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA)
Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (Tas)
Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (Tas)
Work Health and Safety Act 2020 (WA)
Work Health and Safety Act 2020 (WA)
Independent Contractors Act 2006 (Cth)
Independent Contractors Act 2006 (Cth)
Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth)
Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth)
Corporations Law Amendment (Employee Entitlements) Act 2000
Fair Work Amendment (Transfer of Business) Act 2012
Work Health and Safety (First Aid in the Workplace) Code of Practice 2015
Work Health and Safety (How to Manage and Control Asbestos in the Workplace) Code of Practice 2015
Work Health and Safety (Labelling of Workplace Hazardous Chemicals) Code of Practice 2015
Work Health and Safety (Managing Electrical Risks in the Workplace) Code of Practice 2015
Work Health and Safety (Managing Risks of Hazardous Chemicals in the Workplace) Code of Practice 2015
Work Health and Safety (Managing Risks of Plant in the Workplace) Code of Practice 2015
Employment and Workplace Relations Amendment Act 2009
Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and Other Measures) (Consequential Amendments) Act 2006
Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and Other Measures) Act 2005
Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and Vocational Rehabilitation Services) Act 2007
Workplace Relations Amendment (Termination of Employment) Act 2001
Workplace Relations Amendment (Transmission of Business) Act 2004
Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Act 2012
Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009
Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Act 2024
Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Act 2024
Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamations) Act 2020
Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Act 2012
Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Act 2016
Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Regulations 2009
Fair Work (State Referral and Consequential and Other Amendments) Act 2009
Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009
Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya’s) Act 2025
Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Act 2017
Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Act 2026
Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Act 2018
Fair Work Amendment (Improving Unpaid Parental Leave for Parents of Stillborn Babies and Other Measures) Act 2020
Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Act 2022
Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Act 2017
Fair Work Amendment (Repeal of 4 Yearly Reviews and Other Measures) Act 2018
Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Act 2016
Fair Work Amendment (State Referrals and Other Measures) Act 2009
Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia’s Jobs and Economic Recovery) Act 2021
Fair Work Amendment (Textile, Clothing and Footwear Industry) Act 2012
Fair Work Amendment Act 2012
Fair Work Amendment Act 2013
Fair Work Amendment Act 2015
Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2024
Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Act 2023
Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022
Fair Work Regulations 2009
Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Act 2021
Work Health and Safety (Managing the Risk of Falls at Workplaces) Code of Practice 2015
Tracker
- Case1 June 2026
Selected workplace cases added
Businesses using contractor models now have selected-case explainers for Personnel Contracting, Jamsek and Mondelez alongside Fair Work Act coverage.
Employment & Workplace - Reviewed29 May 2026
Fair Work Act added to the business law tracker
The tracker connects workplace law to contracts, policies, award checks, dismissal processes and contractor classification risk.
Employment & Workplace
Cases
Akibou Yacouba v Key Assets The Children's Services Provider (Australia) Limited (No 3)
If your business is defending more than one claim from the same employee or former employee, do not assume the matters will stay separate just because the allegations or remedies are framed differently. If the factual story overlaps, the Court may prefer one combined process with one set of pleadings, one disclosure exercise and one witness timetable. This case also shows the value of disciplined communication. Staff should know not to engage directly about the proceeding unless authorised, and the business should keep a clear record of who is handling court communications. Where the other side is self-represented, consistency and documentation matter even more. Keep affidavits and witness material factual, avoid inflammatory language, and treat every case management hearing as important. Orders made in a party's absence are not easily undone.
Outcome: The Court dismissed the application to set aside the consolidation order. It found the applicant had notice of the earlier hearing, had not provided a reasonable explanation for failing to attend, and had not shown that consolidation was inappropriate. The Court held that the two proceedings involved the same parties, the same former employment and overlapping allegations, including allegations about misconduct, a show cause letter and termination. It maintained that one combined proceeding with one set of pleadings, disclosed documents, witness statements and submissions was the better course. The Court also ordered removal of an affidavit unless paragraphs 27 to 33 were redacted or struck out, restrained direct or indirect communications with persons described in Attachment A, extended time to file a consolidated statement of claim, listed the matter for further case management, and reserved costs.
Ambulance Employees Association of Western Australia Incorporated v United Workers’ Union [2026] FCAFC 62
Do not assume an employee association is excluded from federal registration just because most of its members work in one enterprise. This decision shows that the distinction between an enterprise association and an association of employees is technical and depends on the structure of the Act, not just a quick factual impression. The court accepted that AEAWA was an enterprise association and still capable of being registered under s 19(1) on the construction it preferred. For businesses, that means standing and representation disputes should be handled carefully. If a worker body appears in a Fair Work matter, identify whether it is already registered, applying for registration, or relying on some other basis to represent employees. Review the body’s rules and any current proceedings, and get workplace law advice before making strategic decisions based on assumed status.
Outcome: The Full Court granted judicial review relief. It held that the Fair Work Commission had fallen into jurisdictional error because it did not adopt the correct construction of Part 2 of the Act. The court stated that AEAWA was an enterprise association that was capable of being registered under s 19(1). It issued certiorari quashing the Full Bench decision of 6 December 2024 and the Deputy President’s decision of 17 June 2024. It also issued mandamus requiring the Commission to hear and determine according to law UWU’s application for summary dismissal of AEAWA’s registration application. The court did not itself finally register AEAWA. Instead, it remitted the matter for lawful reconsideration.
B.M.D. Constructions Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (No 3)
If your business relies on site-entry rules, treat documentation as part of the policy itself. This case suggests that where footage, notices, correspondence and internal materials exist, they may affect how sharply the issues are defined before trial. A business in B.M.D.'s position is stronger if it can show what the rule was, who communicated it, what happened on each attendance, and what records were preserved. At the same time, businesses should not assume that any site rule overrides statutory entry rights. The safer reading is to keep entry policies legally sound, tied to genuine safety or operational requirements, and applied consistently. If litigation starts, gather the records early and work through the allegations carefully. Pleadings are not a formality. They can materially affect cost, timing and the scope of the dispute.
Outcome: The Court granted B.M.D.'s interlocutory application. Meagher J ordered that the identified paragraphs of the CFMEU's amended defence be struck out under rule 16.21(1)(f) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) on the basis that they were otherwise an abuse of process, and alternatively under the Court's inherent jurisdiction. The catchwords and reproduced reasons show that the Court considered other information available to the first respondent would allow it to plead responsively, and that the questions of first-hand knowledge and inquiries were central to the application. Costs were not finally determined in the orders reproduced and were left for written submissions.
Bilal v Ampol Australia Petroleum Pty Ltd (Discovery) [2026] FCA 591
Businesses should read this decision as a reminder that discovery is an operational exercise, not just a legal formality. If you are ordered to give discovery, map the relevant systems, run defensible searches, preserve native files and metadata where required, and keep a written record of what was searched and why. If more documents are later found, supplement discovery promptly. If a third party manages claims or employment records, check control and access issues early. Also be ready to explain redactions and privilege claims, especially where employee information is sensitive. The court dismissed the application against Ampol, but the dispute itself shows how much time and cost can be spent arguing about document handling if the process is not organised from the start.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the interlocutory application. It did not grant declarations that Ampol had failed to comply with the discovery orders, did not order the broad fresh discovery sought, and did not make the requested orders preventing Ampol from relying on certain documents or defence contentions. Costs of the application were reserved. The court nevertheless directed the parties to confer and propose consent orders about discovery of an unredacted Excel schedule containing details of the applicant's alleged injuries, an extension of time for reply evidence, and the date for filing documents intended to be tendered at trial. The result indicates a targeted case-management response rather than the broader sanctions sought by the applicant.
Chambers v Broadway Homes Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 28
The key lesson is that defeating the broadest version of an employee's contract case may not protect the business. Here, the court rejected the claim that a four-year oral employment deal had already been concluded in October 2022. But once the employee started work in January 2023, there was still an employment contract, and the court found that for certain pay periods he should have been paid at a much higher rate than payroll actually applied. The court also found the dismissal breached the general protections provisions because it was taken because he had commenced Fair Work Commission proceedings. If your business is settling an earlier dispute and offering re-employment, use a written settlement deed and a separate written employment contract. State clearly whether remuneration is salary, commission, package, or package inclusive of super. If the employee later complains or files a Fair Work claim, make sure any management action is supported by contemporaneous evidence that is genuinely independent of that protected conduct.
Outcome: The Federal Court found that Mr Chambers had not proved the broader oral employment agreement he alleged from the October 2022 discussions, and that there was no employment agreement at all before 9 January 2023. However, the court found that an employment contract did exist from 9 January 2023. Broadway Homes was declared to have breached section 323(1)(a) for the periods 24 to 25 April 2023 and 10 May to 17 May 2023 by paying Mr Chambers at a rate of $52,000 per annum exclusive of superannuation when he was entitled to be paid at a rate of $180,000 per annum inclusive of superannuation for those periods. The court also declared that Broadway Homes breached section 340 by dismissing him on or about 20 June 2023 because he had exercised a workplace right by commencing a Fair Work Commission proceeding. Mr Basso was declared to have been involved in both breaches within section 550. The parties were ordered to confer on the underpayment calculation, and a further case management hearing was to be fixed.
Cleary v Qube Ports Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 628
Business owners should read this as a records, drafting and communications case as much as a workplace conduct case. The Court did not decide whether Qube Ports actually contravened the Fair Work Act. It decided whether the pleaded case was clear enough to proceed. One paragraph was struck out because the applicant said an email terminated a contract for services, but did not plead the material facts showing how that email had that legal effect. Other alternative allegations survived because they could be understood by reading them with the surrounding pleaded discussions and correspondence. In practice, if your business uses contractors, project work, casual arrangements or changing engagement models, keep the legal basis of each arrangement clear. If a complaint is made and you later disable access, stop offering work, or say no roles are available, expect those steps to be examined closely. Your contracts, emails, internal notes and complaint handling process should all line up with the position you may later need to defend.
Outcome: Horan J ordered that paragraph 92 of the statement of claim be struck out under r 16.21 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), with leave for Ms Cleary to amend by 26 June 2026. The Court otherwise dismissed the relevant parts of Qube Ports' interlocutory application. It held that the allegations about Ms Cleary being a worker at the relevant times were sufficiently clear once the particulars and clarifications already given were taken into account. It also held that paragraphs 93 and 94, which pleaded alternative adverse action cases based on refusal to engage or refusal to employ, could stand because they were sufficiently anchored in other pleaded facts. The available text does not show the Court's full final reasoning on the challenged relief in paragraph H.4.
Crowley v Worley Limited [2026] FCAFC 78
If your business gives financial guidance, growth statements or investor updates, make sure the statement has a documented and defensible foundation at the time it is made and each time it is repeated. A board-approved budget is helpful, but it is not a complete answer if the underlying assumptions are stretched, not properly risk-adjusted, or are being questioned by management. This case also shows that repeated statements can create fresh exposure if the business has learned more in the meantime. For listed entities, that means close coordination between finance, operations, legal and investor relations when budgets move, downside risks emerge, or analyst expectations drift away from what management really thinks is achievable. For private businesses, the same discipline still matters in dealings with investors, lenders and buyers. Keep clear records of assumptions, known risks, internal warnings and the reasons for any forecast changes.
Outcome: The Full Court allowed Mr Crowley’s appeal and dismissed Worley’s cross-appeal. It varied the remitter judge’s orders so that the answer to the question about inflation was yes, with share price inflation of 5.92%, and the answer to the question about loss was yes, in the amount of $593 plus interest from 4 October 2013. The Court also set aside the remitter judge’s later costs orders and instead ordered Worley to pay Mr Crowley’s costs of the initial and remitted trials, as well as the costs of the appeal and cross-appeal. In practical terms, the shareholder succeeded both in preserving liability and in proving some compensable loss.
Deakin University v Macreadie [2026] FCA 481
If your business allows a key person to build a branded team, service line, studio, lab or product identity, document ownership early and manage the assets centrally. This case shows that courts can look past personal attachment to a brand and ask harder commercial questions: who employed the team, who contracted with clients, who paid for development, who controlled operations, and whose business reputation the market was dealing with. A person may honestly believe the brand is theirs and still lose on ownership. Businesses should make sure employment and contractor agreements deal clearly with intellectual property and branding, keep domain names and social handles under the correct entity, ensure trade mark applications are filed in the right owner’s name, and run a careful exit process when a senior person leaves. If there is already tension about who owns a brand, act before a resignation or trade mark filing turns it into litigation.
Outcome: On the published extract, Deakin succeeded on the main ownership and Australian Consumer Law issues. The court held that Deakin was the owner of the goodwill of the Blue Carbon Lab and that Professor Macreadie’s use of the name and marks as an employee for commercial endeavours was Deakin’s use. The applications for injunctions were granted. Deakin also succeeded in rectifying the Trade Marks Register on ownership grounds, with the extract stating that Blue Carbon Lab Pty Ltd was not the owner of the logo trade mark and that Deakin was the first user of the logo as a trade mark. However, Deakin did not succeed on bad faith. The judge found Professor Macreadie subjectively believed he owned the rights to the logo mark, and that a mistaken belief about ownership did not, without more, amount to bad faith. The exact form of final orders was still to be settled after the reasons date.
Department of Employment and Workplace Relations v Howell, in the matter of Castel Electronics Pty Ltd (No 3) [2026] FCA 266
Do not treat indemnity clauses, novation deeds, or group-company liability allocations as back-office paperwork. This case shows that once a claim is settled, the next and more expensive fight may be over reimbursement. If your documents shift an indemnity from one entity to another, the Court may enforce that shift and order repayment of the settlement sum with interest. It may also punish unreasonable resistance through indemnity costs, especially where a party maintains weak positions or rejects sensible Calderbank offers. For business owners, the practical steps are to make sure indemnities are clearly allocated, novations are properly documented, and correspondence about who bears risk is consistent with the legal documents. If there is a real dispute, get advice early before locking into a position that could later be described as unmeritorious or unreasonable.
Outcome: The Federal Court declared that Thorn Australia, and not 1stCash, was the indemnifying party under the Deed of Indemnity dated 25 January 2018. It declared that Thorn Australia was liable to indemnify the receivers for their defence costs in the plaintiff's claim, the $900,000 settlement sum, and the superannuation guarantee charge if a demand for payment were made. The Court entered judgment for the receivers against Thorn Australia for $900,000 plus $120,982.19 interest calculated to 13 March 2026. It also ordered Thorn Australia to pay the receivers' defence costs and first cross-claim costs on an indemnity basis, and to pay 1stCash's costs of both cross-claims on an indemnity basis. Costs were to be fixed by a Registrar on a lump sum basis.
DP World Sydney Ltd v Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union
The main lesson for business owners is to draft workplace process clauses as operating instructions, not slogans. If an enterprise agreement or similar instrument is meant to involve the employer, a union, employees directly, an employee committee, or some combination of them, say that expressly at each critical step. Identify who gets notified, who receives supporting information, who joins discussions, who seeks agreement, who may refer issues onward, who nominates panel members, and who agrees the presiding member. This case also shows the value of checking how one clause interacts with the rest of the process. Here, the court treated the information-sharing step as a strong clue to who the relevant parties were for later discussions and panel formation. Before launching automation or another major operational change, review the whole pathway against your project timetable. A procedural ambiguity can delay the project, increase industrial tension and force court proceedings about process rather than substance.
Outcome: DP World succeeded. Shariff J made declarations that clause 2 of Appendix 4 in each of the four enterprise agreements provided for an Independent Panel of three members consisting of one member nominated by the relevant DP World entity, one member nominated by the union, and one presiding panel head agreed between the relevant applicant and the union. The court rejected the competing construction that employees at each terminal were also a separate collective “party” entitled to nominate one member to the three-member panel. The decision resolved the immediate dispute that had been holding up empanelment of the panel under the automation process in the agreements.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (Kwinana Bulk Jetty Case) (Costs) [2026] FCA 126
If your business is defending a Fair Work claim, do not assume that beating the claim will automatically lead to a costs order. This case shows that section 570 creates a narrow path to costs, and the Court will be slow to find that the other side acted unreasonably. A late offer made just before trial, with only a short response window, may carry less weight than an earlier and more fully explained offer. The Court also made clear that the Fair Work Ombudsman’s model litigant obligations do not change the statutory test for costs under section 570. In practice, businesses should make settlement offers early enough to be properly assessed, explain the legal and factual weaknesses they rely on, and keep realistic expectations about recovering legal spend in workplace litigation.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the union’s application for costs. Justice Dowling held that, in all the circumstances, the Ombudsman’s rejection of the settlement offer was not unreasonable for the purposes of section 570(2)(b). The offer was made late, only six days before trial, and gave the Ombudsman only a short period to consider it. Although the union later succeeded in defeating the claims against it, the Court was not satisfied that the Ombudsman’s case against the union was clearly hopeless at the time of the offer. The Court also held that the Ombudsman’s model litigant obligations did not alter the approach or standard to be applied under section 570.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Gill (Kwinana Bulk Jetty Case) (Penalty)
Business owners should read this case as a warning about how workplace threats are assessed when they occur in an industrial context. The Court did not treat the incident as mere heated language. It looked closely at the exact words, the purpose behind them, the surrounding crowd behaviour, the time and place, the distress caused, and the need to deter similar conduct by others. The case also shows that one act can engage multiple Fair Work Act provisions at once, even though the Court may impose only one pecuniary penalty for that same conduct. If your business is dealing with picketing, bargaining pressure or conflict between workers over industrial action, respond early and methodically. Preserve CCTV and access records, obtain witness accounts promptly, support the affected worker, and assess both workplace safety and Fair Work Act risk. Do not assume that because the conduct came from an individual rather than the employer, the legal consequences are minor or purely internal.
Outcome: The Federal Court ordered Mr Jason Gill to pay a pecuniary penalty of $9,324 for his contravention of s 348 of the Fair Work Act, with payment to the Commonwealth within 28 days. The Court held that the same conduct had also contravened ss 343 and 346, but s 556 prevented multiple pecuniary penalties for that same conduct, so only one penalty was imposed. In setting the amount, the Court gave particular weight to the seriousness of the threat, the intimidatory environment in which it was made, the significant distress caused to Mr Copperthwaite, and the need for both specific and general deterrence. Although Mr Gill had no prior industrial law contraventions and there had been no recurrence, the Court still considered a high-end penalty appropriate.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Jats Joint Pty Ltd [2026] FCAFC 25
If your business uses SCHADS sleepovers, do not assume that a sleepover automatically converts the surrounding roster into a night shift. In this case, the Court preferred an interpretation that treated the sleepover period as distinct from ordinary work, with its own allowance and separate overtime treatment if work is actually performed during the sleepover. The safest operational approach is to keep rosters and payroll records very clear about three separate things: ordinary hours worked before the sleepover, the sleepover period itself, and any work actually done during that overnight period. You should also check whether your payroll system is incorrectly treating all sleepover-adjacent shifts as night shifts, or incorrectly treating sleepover time as ordinary worked time. Because the judgment turned on detailed award wording, businesses should compare their current practices against the current SCHADS Award and get advice on unusual roster patterns.
Outcome: The Full Federal Court dismissed the appeal. It held that the better construction of the SCHADS Award was that a sleepover is distinct from work and is not automatically part of a shift for the purpose argued by the Fair Work Ombudsman. The Court relied on the Award’s text, including the separate sleepover allowance, the separate overtime provision for work performed during a sleepover, and the wording of the clauses dealing with work immediately before and or after a sleepover and breaks between rostered work. It also held that the clause stating shifts are to be worked in one continuous block of hours that may include meal breaks and sleepover did not mean a sleepover must always be treated as part of a shift for all purposes. As a result, Ms Richards was not entitled to the 15% night shift loading for the shifts worked immediately before and or after the sleepover in the circumstances before the Court.
Fair Work Ombudsman v New Switch Electrical Pty Ltd (Appeal) [2026] FCA 415
If your business receives a Fair Work compliance notice, treat it as an urgent legal and payroll event. This case shows that failing to comply may expose the business to more than penalties. On the published reasons, the Federal Court held that compensation-style relief under s 545(1) was available in the circumstances because the employee’s loss was linked both to the original underpayments and to the later failure to comply with the notice. The notice in this matter required more than payment. It also required calculations, superannuation action, records and proof of compliance. Businesses should therefore read every notice carefully, identify each required step, preserve payroll records, calculate any shortfall promptly, and get advice quickly if the notice is disputed or unclear. Directors should assume their own conduct may be examined where they knew about the notice and chose not to act. The final entered orders should still be checked before relying on the exact form of relief.
Outcome: On the published reasons, the appeal succeeded on the main point. Wheelahan J granted leave to appeal to the extent necessary and held that the primary judge erred in concluding the court lacked power to make the compensation orders sought by the Fair Work Ombudsman. The Court stated that the contraventions of the applicable Award and National Employment Standards, together with the later failure to comply with the compliance notice, were concurrent causes of the employee's loss, and that had the employer taken the action specified in the notice the employee would have been paid the specified amounts. The reasons say the Fair Work Ombudsman was entitled to relief substantially in the terms sought. However, the published orders also directed the appellant to provide a minute of proposed orders by 17 April 2026, so the final entered orders should be checked for the exact operative relief.
Fair Work Ombudsman v New Switch Electrical Pty Ltd (Extension of Time) [2026] FCA 390
Treat appeal deadlines as a combined filing-and-service task. In this case, the notice of appeal was lodged within 28 days, but the respondents were not personally served until later because they had not appeared in the earlier proceeding and therefore had no address for service in that proceeding. The Court granted an extension because the delay was short, the respondents had fair notice of the appeal and hearing date, the explanation for delay was accepted, and no likely prejudice was shown. A business should not assume the Court will always rescue a missed step. If you are appealing, check early whether personal service is required and organise it immediately. If you are a respondent, keep your registered office details current, monitor mail, and act quickly on any appeal documents because the matter may proceed even if service was initially late.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted an extension of time for service of the notice of appeal to 20 November 2025 nunc pro tunc. That retrospectively regularised the late personal service. The Court dismissed the earlier interlocutory application filed on 10 February 2026, which had sought other service-related orders, and reserved the costs of both interlocutory applications to the hearing of the appeal. The appeal itself was not determined in this judgment and remained fixed for hearing on 10 April 2026. The Court's reasons centred on the short delay, the accepted explanation for it, the respondents' fair notice of the appeal and hearing date, their failure to oppose the application, and the absence of likely prejudice if time were extended.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Super Retail Group Limited (Listing of trial) [2026] FCA 54
Read this case as a warning about court timetable risk, not as a ruling on payroll compliance merits. If your business is defending an underpayment claim, the Court may push the matter to hearing once it sees that the case can be made ready, even if your long-standing Senior Counsel cannot appear on the available dates. The Court accepted that changing counsel can cause inconvenience and extra cost, but that was not enough here to justify a much later hearing. The practical response is to plan for contingencies. Keep pleadings and evidence moving. Identify who in the business will give instructions and evidence. Make sure payroll records and award interpretation material are organised. Ask your lawyers early whether backup counsel may be needed. If the dispute concerns older conduct, assume the Court may place real weight on getting the matter heard rather than preserving a party’s preferred legal team. This is especially relevant where a regulator is involved and the Court has available hearing dates.
Outcome: Shariff J ordered that the proceedings be listed for final hearing on the agreed separate questions from 7 to 18 December 2026. The Court held that although Super Retail Group had a legitimate interest in being represented by its chosen Senior Counsel, that interest was not determinative. The judge considered that the matter could have been listed even earlier, in July 2026, but selected December 2026 to give Super Retail Group more time to brief alternative counsel if needed. Because the alleged underpayments related mainly to 2017 to 2019 and the Court was available to hear the matter, further delay into 2027 was not accepted.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Torrens University Australia Limited [2026] FCAFC 17
Business owners should read this case as a warning against broad, operationally convenient interpretations of award pay categories. The fact that tasks are linked in practice does not mean they are paid under the same award rate. The Court focused on the text, structure and safety-net purpose of the award, not on how one employer organised teaching work. If your staff perform a mix of duties, such as delivery, preparation, marking, consultation or administration, you need to map each duty against the actual award categories and check whether the instrument treats them as separately payable. This is especially important where a rate is described as composite or all-inclusive. If a Fair Work compliance notice is issued, the dispute may turn almost entirely on award construction. Early legal review of the instrument, the payroll assumptions behind it, and the actual work performed is critical before deciding how to respond.
Outcome: The Full Court allowed the Fair Work Ombudsman's appeal. It set aside the declarations and orders made at first instance on 16 June 2025 and ordered, under s 717(3) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), that the compliance notice issued to Torrens University Australia Limited on 19 March 2024 be confirmed. The Court held that the primary judge's construction gave insufficient weight to the award's text and structure, especially the existence of a separate stand-alone marking rate. On the proper construction, the lecturing rate compensates for one hour of lecture delivery plus a limited body of associated work, while ordinary marking of assessment tasks is generally separately remunerated under the marking rate. The fact that the academic also lectured in the subject did not change the character of the marking work.
Grofski v Peabody Energy Australia PCI Mine Management Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 124
If your business is defending a workplace or whistleblower claim, do not assume you will recover costs just because the other side’s case is difficult to follow. In this area, the court starts from a protective costs regime. To have any real prospect of a costs order, you need evidence of a specific unreasonable act or omission that caused wasted legal work. That means keeping a careful chronology of correspondence, court orders, versions of pleadings, and the work your lawyers had to redo. This case also shows that a narrow costs application can succeed where a broad one may fail. The respondents did not obtain costs from the date the amendment application was filed. They succeeded only from the later date when the applicant served a further draft in breach of orders. If your business is bringing a claim, the warning is equally clear: costs protection is not a licence to keep changing pleadings, ignore formatting rules or serve moving-target documents after deadlines have passed.
Outcome: The Federal Court made a limited costs order for the respondents. It held that the filing of the interlocutory application on 26 August 2025 was not, by itself, unreasonable within the meaning of section 570 of the Fair Work Act or section 1317AH of the Corporations Act. The Court accepted that, although waiting may have been wiser, the applicant was self-represented and her decision to file was not enough to justify costs. However, the Court found that the applicant acted unreasonably in serving a third draft further amended statement of claim and associated materials on 14 November 2025. That step came after the respondents had already filed submissions on an earlier draft and after an order requiring the final version by 3 October 2025. The applicant was therefore ordered to pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application from 14 November 2025 onward, to be assessed on a lump sum basis.
Hisense Australia Pty Ltd v Naskovski [2026] FCA 20
Read this case as a technical decision about one Fair Work record-access issue, not as a broader statement that employment contracts do not matter. The Court decided that the obligation in s 535 and reg 3.42 is directed to statutory employee records of the kind prescribed by the regulations, not automatically to the employment contract itself. That distinction helped Hisense on appeal because the employee had asked for his contract, and the Court treated that as different from asking for a statutory employee record. For a business owner, the safest approach is still to keep both categories of documents. Maintain compliant employee records with the prescribed information, and also retain signed contracts, role documents and any written workplace agreements the law specifically requires you to keep. If an employee requests documents, identify exactly what has been requested, whether it is a statutory employee record, a specific written agreement, or another employment document that should still be provided for practical or dispute-management reasons.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal. Bennett J held that the primary judge erred in treating the employment contract as a type of record required to be kept under reg 3.32. The Court found that the regulations require employers to make and keep a record containing specified information, but do not generally require that information to be kept in the form of the employment contract itself. Because Mr Naskovski's request was for his employment contract, it was not a request for a statutory employee record within the meaning of reg 3.42 as the Court construed the regime. Order 2 of the primary orders dated 7 August 2025 was set aside, and there was no order as to the costs of the leave application.
Hitachi Rail STS Australia Pty Ltd v Schoof [2026] FCA 343
Business owners should read this case as a lesson in instrument-specific payroll interpretation. Here, the agreement separated ordinary hourly rates in Schedule B from allowances in Schedule C, and that structure drove the result. The Court accepted that the Schedule B rate was the relevant rate for overtime and weekend penalties, while allowances remained separate payments where applicable. It also refused to decide an extra point about a waiting time clause once the real dispute had fallen away. In practice, that means you should not rely on assumptions or labels alone. Review the exact wording of your enterprise agreement, map each allowance type, and check that payroll settings match the legal text. A mistaken setup can continue for years and become expensive to unwind.
Outcome: The Federal Court found for Hitachi on the main construction dispute. It declared that, for clause 4.10 weekend penalties and clause 4.11.2 overtime, the relevant rate was the applicable hourly rate in Schedule B, excluding allowances payable under clause 5.1. That meant Mr Schoof's argument that allowances should be added to the hourly rate before applying overtime or penalty multipliers was rejected. The Court did not grant the further declaration sought about the waiting time clause. Although there had originally been a justiciable controversy, the Court declined relief as a matter of discretion because the issue was no longer live, there was no substantive opposing argument, and no real utility remained once the main allowance argument failed.
Ioakimidis v Lygon Court Travel Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 176
A business should read this case as a reminder that uncertainty is itself a risk. The Court accepted that the admitted breaches arose in a context of ignorance, confusion and lack of appropriate enquiry about whether the worker was an employee or an independent contractor. But that did not prevent substantial penalties. The written contracts made the problem worse, not better, because they were titled "Employment Agreement" while also saying the worker was a contractor and not entitled to leave. If your documents send mixed signals, or one worker is handled outside your normal payroll system, that is a sign to stop and review the arrangement. In practice, businesses should make sure the contract matches the real relationship, check award coverage where relevant, issue compliant payslips, keep employee records from the start, and avoid one-off exceptions that leave a worker outside ordinary payroll compliance.
Outcome: The Federal Court made declarations that Lygon Court Travel Pty Ltd had contravened s 45 of the Fair Work Act by failing to pay annual leave loading on termination, s 535(1) by failing to make and keep employee records, and s 536(1) by failing to provide payslips. It imposed penalties of $15,000, $20,000 and $20,000 respectively, totalling $55,000, payable to the applicant within 28 days. The proceeding against the two individual respondents was dismissed by consent, and all other claims against the company were dismissed apart from the admitted contraventions. The Court accepted that the breaches arose in a context of confusion and lack of proper enquiry, but still considered substantial penalties necessary.
Kent Projects Pty Ltd v Communications Electrical Electronics Energy Information Postal Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia [2026] FCAFC 74
Read this case as a warning about process discipline, not as a final ruling that any omission will invalidate an enterprise agreement. The Full Court dealt with an interlocutory appeal about pleading sufficiency. It held only that the union had an arguable case based on alleged non-disclosure to the Fair Work Commission. For businesses, the safest approach is to assume that facts bearing on genuine agreement, voting eligibility and the real employment position may later be scrutinised closely. Before lodging approval materials, confirm which entity employs the relevant workers, whether each voter is genuinely employed to perform work, and whether any temporary or transitional arrangements should be explained. Keep records that support those positions. If the bargaining process sits alongside a restructure or transfer of work, get legal review early. The cost of checking the approval pathway is usually far lower than defending a challenge after approval has been granted.
Outcome: The Full Court dismissed the appeal. It held that the primary judge did not err in finding that the union had demonstrated a reasonable cause of action with some chance of success for the purposes of resisting strike-out. The result was that the challenged parts of the union's pleading remained on foot and the substantive proceeding could continue. The Court did not finally decide that Kent had engaged in fraud, that the Fair Work Commission approval was invalid, or that the union was entitled to certiorari or mandamus. The decision is best understood as a procedural ruling about pleading sufficiency and the continuation of the underlying challenge.
Leung v Omnia Inclusive Employment Solutions Ltd [2026] FCA 606
A lawful reason for dismissal is not enough if the process is untidy. In this matter, the courts accepted that the employer had decided during probation to terminate the employee, and the appeal did not disturb the finding that the dismissal was not because she exercised workplace rights or because she was temporarily absent from work. But the employer still remained exposed on the basic termination mechanics because the termination letter recorded an earlier date and payment in lieu of notice was delayed. For business owners, the practical lesson is to avoid mixed messages. If a decision has been made, record when it was made, who made it and why. If notice is to be paid in lieu, make sure that happens consistently with the termination process. Do not let workers compensation developments, leave status or disputes about company property blur the dismissal timeline.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the appeal. Halley J granted leave to file a further amended notice of appeal except for proposed ground 5, which concerned an alleged denial of a fair opportunity to plead accessorial liability. The Court rejected the procedural fairness complaints addressed in the accessible reasons, including complaints about excessive judicial intervention. The result left standing the primary judge’s conclusions that Omnia had not contravened sections 340 or 352 of the Fair Work Act. However, the earlier finding that Omnia contravened section 44 by failing to comply with section 117 notice requirements remained undisturbed, along with the $10,000 compensation order. The Court made no order as to costs.
Lighthouse Building Permits Pty Ltd v Site Inspections Pty Ltd
Business owners should read this as an interlocutory procedure case with a practical defamation lesson. The Court did not decide that defamation had been proved. It decided that the pleaded case against the third and fourth respondents was arguable and should continue. On the allegations before the Court, helping create a publication, supplying information for it, agreeing to be interviewed for it, or later endorsing it may be enough to keep you in the case. The decision also shows that procedural shortcuts can backfire. Summary judgment, strike-out applications, early evidence filing and notices to produce all have proper uses, but only when the law and timing support them. If a business presses applications that have no reasonable prospect of success, especially after being warned, the Court may dismiss them and order indemnity costs. Self-representation is not a shield. If your business is involved in a public dispute, control further publication, preserve records, and get advice before taking aggressive procedural steps.
Outcome: Justice Snaden dismissed both the review application and the adjournment application. The Court held that the applicants' statement of claim did disclose an arguable cause of action in defamation against Mr and Mrs Martens, so there was no basis for summary judgment, strike-out relief or their removal as respondents. The Court also held that the application to file and rely on documentary material was premature and that the notice to produce was not a proper notice because it sought documents at large. The registrar's orders dismissing those steps, setting aside the notice, removing certain material from the file, and awarding indemnity costs were affirmed. The separate question of costs for the review and adjournment applications was left to be determined on short written submissions.
Lye v Commonwealth of Australia (as represented by the Bureau of Meteorology) [2026] FCA 594
Businesses should read this as an interim injunction case, not a final ruling that the dismissal was lawful. The Court did not decide the final merits of the employee's general protections claim. It only decided that urgent reinstatement and related orders should not be granted on the material then before it. What mattered was that the employer had identified the decision-makers, pointed to letters and process documents recording their reasons, and framed those reasons around conduct and workplace impact rather than the fact that complaints had been made. If an employee has raised safety, discrimination, injury management, rehabilitation or bullying issues, employers should be especially careful. Do not criticise the employee for using complaint channels or legal rights. If there is a genuine conduct issue, describe it precisely, document it at the time, preserve the decision-maker's evidence, and keep records showing the distinction between protected activity and unacceptable behaviour. Also remember that delay can affect urgent applications, but it will not end the underlying claim.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed Mr Lye's interlocutory application dated 17 April 2026. Snaden J held that Mr Lye had not established a sufficient prima facie case for urgent reinstatement or the related interim orders he sought. The Court also said that delay in pursuing the relief strongly counted against granting it. Although suspension and dismissal were accepted to be adverse action, the Court was not prepared, on the interim evidence, to infer the prohibited reasons or coercive intent alleged. The Bureau's evidence from the relevant decision-makers was described as uncontradicted, internally coherent and at least partly documented. Importantly, the judgment did not finally determine the underlying general protections claims. Those issues were left for trial.
Marie v Trustee for Aspire Residences Unit Trust
Read this case as a warning about settlement follow-through. A deed of release is a binding contract. If your business agrees to pay by a set date, treat that date as operationally critical even if the deed does not say time is of the essence. Here, the late payment did not revive the original employment case, and once payment was made the employee's interlocutory application became pointless for practical enforcement purposes. But the delay still triggered litigation. Businesses should make sure signed deeds are logged immediately, payment responsibility is allocated to a named person, funds are transferred before the deadline, proof of payment is sent straight away, and consent orders are prepared in advance. If there is a delay, communicate early and consider whether a practical resolution can stop the dispute from escalating. Also remember that a later fight about the deed may be treated as a contract matter with ordinary costs exposure.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the interlocutory application. Justice McElwaine held that the application to enforce the compromise was properly lodged when filed because payment had not yet been made, but once the employer paid the $15,000 the application became inutile because no practical enforcement relief remained available through that interlocutory process. The Court held that the deed did not allow the original proceeding to be revived for non-compliance, and that breach of a non-essential time stipulation was not a basis to impeach the compromise in the way sought. Any attempt to set aside the deed for repudiation required a new proceeding. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the application from 30 April 2025 because, acting reasonably, she should have withdrawn it after payment was received.
Michales v CharterLaw Legal Pty Limited [2026] FCA 209
If your business has stopped trading in the same way, transferred active operations, or moved work into a new entity, you may still be able to recover debts owed to the original company. In this case, the Court accepted that recovering old legal fees was not the same thing as carrying on unqualified legal practice. The creditor company remained a registered company and could instruct solicitors through its officers. If you are resisting a bankruptcy notice, the lesson is the opposite side of that coin. You need a real and legally relevant ground, not a broad complaint that the creditor has acted badly or no longer operates as it once did. Courts will closely examine whether your alleged counterclaim, set-off or cross-demand actually answers the debt. They will also scrutinise attempts to add new claims after the statutory period has passed. Focus, timing and evidence matter more than volume.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the application to set aside the bankruptcy notice, dismissed the proposed amendment application, dismissed the review application concerning the notice to produce and subpoenas, and dismissed the joinder application. On the reasoning available, Perry J held that CLL remained a registered company capable of instructing solicitors through its officers, and that seeking to recover unpaid legal fees for services provided while it was in legal practice did not amount to unqualified legal practice. The Court also rejected the allegation that CharterLaw Pty Ltd was a phoenix company, found the requested documents had no apparent relevance, and left open a further application by the respondent for indemnity costs.
Mokhtari v Piacentini & Son Pty Ltd (No 3)
Business owners should read this case as a reminder that employment litigation often becomes a contest about documents before it becomes a contest about witnesses. If you say a role ended because of redundancy, or that a complaint was handled properly, or that a performance process was legitimate, your records need to support that position in a clear and consistent way. At the same time, this decision shows that discovery is not unlimited. The Court will usually focus on documents that are directly relevant to the pleaded claims and resist requests that create collateral disputes, extra cost and delay. The case also underlines that discovery obligations continue after an affidavit is filed. If more documents are later found, they may still need to be produced. In practice, businesses should preserve records early, keep versions of key procedures, maintain coherent HR and operational files, and avoid taking overly technical procedural points that distract from the real issues in dispute.
Outcome: Colvin J ordered some further discovery and refused other categories. The employer was required to produce specified witness statements, an original email referred to in a disclosed document, certain employment and contractor records, versions of a document control procedure, weekly flight manifests to Argyle for Mondays in the stated period, and monthly employee headcount reports. The Court refused broader requests concerning accommodation and belongings, DMIRS and WorkSafe-related material, all performance management policies and forms, safety training records and metadata. The Court also rejected the attempt to strike out the supplementary affidavit of discovery, holding that discovery is an ongoing obligation and that later production of responsive documents can be consistent with proper compliance. Costs of the interlocutory application were reserved.
Mokhtari v Piacentini & Son Pty Ltd (No 4)
Read this as a procedural expert-evidence case, not a ruling on who was right in the underlying employment dispute. The Court did not decide liability, causation or damages. It decided only that the employer could require a psychiatric examination under r 23.21 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). That rule was introduced in January 2023, and the judgment shows how the Court may use it. If a claimant puts mental health injury at the centre of a substantial damages claim, your business may be able to seek its own examination even if the claimant has already obtained an independent report. The application should be framed around fairness, probative value and the need to defend the claim properly, not around general attacks on the claimant's credibility. Businesses should also expect conditions designed to protect the examined person's interests and should prepare for those conditions from the outset.
Outcome: The Court granted the respondent's application and ordered the applicant to attend an examination by Dr Lawrence Terace for up to two hours and to do all things reasonably requested and answer all questions reasonably asked for the purposes of the examination. The Court held that the examination was clearly in the interests of justice because the applicant's alleged mental health injury was at the heart of the case, the damages claim was very large, the respondent had not been involved in selecting the applicant's expert, there was no medical evidence of material risk of harm from the examination, and fairness required the respondent to be able to obtain and present its own expert evidence. The Court also imposed detailed safeguards about notice, instructions, costs, attendance expenses, service of the report, expert attendance and recording.
Nafar v BT Funds Management Limited
The main takeaway is that policy-specific certification requirements are not just paperwork. They can be threshold conditions to any entitlement. In Nafar, the Court relied on earlier authority to confirm that where a policy requires certification from a doctor appointed by the insurer or trustee, other medical reports will not necessarily fill the gap. Businesses should read this as a warning against casual descriptions of disability cover. If a worker asks whether they are entitled to a TPD benefit, the safest answer is that entitlement depends on the policy definition, the required medical assessment pathway and the insurer's decision-making process under the contract. Keep employment issues separate from insurance entitlement issues. A worker may be unfit for their role, but that does not automatically mean they satisfy a TPD definition. Clear communications, accurate benefit summaries and disciplined record-keeping are the practical protections.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted summary judgment for BT Funds Management Limited and AIA Australia Limited, dismissed the proceeding and ordered Mr Nafar to pay their costs. Derrington J held that the policy imposed a threshold requirement for certification by a qualified medical practitioner appointed by the insurer, and that requirement had not been met. The Court relied on earlier authority dealing with similar policy wording and concluded that, without the required certification, Mr Nafar had no reasonable prospect of establishing an entitlement to a TPD benefit. The Court also held that the declarations sought against the insurer and trustee had no utility because no entitlement arose under the policy and the trustee had no obligation to pay unless the insurer first paid the trustee.
New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung [2026] FCAFC 49
The practical lesson is to be specific. A court may be reluctant to protect a sweeping category like every supplier the business has ever used, but much more willing to protect a targeted group of current and reliable suppliers that took time and effort to identify. This case also shows that misuse claims do not always depend on proving classic equitable confidentiality. If a director or officer uses information obtained through their role in an improper way, s 183 may still apply. Businesses should review confidentiality clauses, access controls, messaging-app practices, personal device use, and offboarding steps for staff who hold supplier, customer or pricing contacts. If key commercial relationships live in an employee’s phone, the business should treat that as a governance issue, not just an IT issue.
Outcome: The Full Court allowed New Aim’s appeal. It held that the primary judge erred by not addressing the narrower case concerning the 17 specific suppliers. On that narrower basis, the Court found the information concerning those suppliers was confidential, so New Aim’s breach of confidence claim succeeded. The contract claim also succeeded for equivalent reasons. The Court further held that s 183(1) is not limited to information confidential in equity and that Mr Leung had improperly used information obtained because of his position to gain an advantage for himself and Broers. The dismissal orders were set aside, costs orders were made in New Aim’s favour, and the matter was remitted for further hearing and determination, including the claims against Sun Yee and Broers and questions of relief.
Nimhurchu v QBE Insurance (Australia) Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 59
The practical lesson is to treat examination requests and suspension decisions as part of a tightly structured statutory process. If your business, insurer or claims manager wants a worker to attend a further medical examination, keep a clear record of why it is said to be necessary, especially where earlier opinions differ. Give the worker proper notice, identify the practitioner, address location and support person issues, and respond to objections in writing. If a determination is made under s 57, the next question is usually which review avenue the legislation provides, not whether a court declaration sounds more attractive. This judgment suggests the Federal Court will not readily allow parties to bypass the specialist review pathway. For businesses, disciplined process management can reduce delay, avoid parallel litigation and limit the risk of adverse costs orders.
Outcome: Needham J gave judgment for QBE and Optus and refused the declarations and related orders sought by Ms Nimhurchu. The Court ordered that judgment be entered for the respondents and that the applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the interlocutory application and the proceedings, as agreed or taxed. The catchwords show that the Court’s primary conclusion was that federal jurisdiction had not been properly invoked. In the alternative, the Court held that it should not exercise its discretion to grant relief. On the available reasons, the case was decided as a forum and process dispute, not as a determination of the underlying workers compensation entitlement.
Offshore Employers Association Limited v Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union [2026] FCA 134
Treat the dispute resolution clause in your enterprise agreement as more than a procedural formality. This case shows that the Fair Work Commission's arbitral role is tied to the dispute actually referred under the agreement and the Fair Work Act. If the documents say the dispute concerns one employee's entitlement, a later attempt to present a broader construction issue may not make the result enterprise-wide. Businesses should keep careful records of each step in the dispute procedure, identify whether the issue is individual or broader, and check whether any agreed questions for arbitration match the dispute that was notified. If several related employers are affected by the same clause, separate or joined court proceedings may still be needed to obtain broader certainty.
Outcome: Jackson J answered the preliminary question by holding that the Fair Work Commission's arbitral award of 9 June 2025 bound Cyan Vessel Operations Pty Ltd only in so far as it concerned the entitlements of Mr Geoffrey Ammon under clause 39 of the enterprise agreement. The Court therefore rejected the argument that the award bound Cyan across all employees covered by the agreement. The Court also removed Offshore Employers Association Limited as an applicant and joined Bhagwan Marine Limited, Fugro Australia Pty Ltd, GO Offshore Pty Ltd, Jetwave Marine Services Pty Ltd, OSM Australia Pty Ltd, Programmed Offshore Pty Ltd and Solstad Australia Pty Ltd as applicants. On the available reasons, the decision is best understood as a ruling about the scope and legal effect of the arbitral award and the management of related disputes, rather than a final enterprise-wide determination of the clause itself.
Ogbonna v Link Workforce Pty Ltd (No 3)
Businesses should read this case as a reminder that courtroom conduct and compliance with directions can materially affect the course of a dispute. If your business is defending a claim, keep careful records of lateness, repeated interruptions, refusal to engage with the issue before the Court, and any resulting delay or extra legal cost. Those facts may support procedural relief if the process becomes unfair. At the same time, this was not a case where the Court stayed the proceeding simply because the applicant wanted time for a High Court application. The applicant did ask for a stay on that basis, but the Court’s stay was made for a different reason: to protect the proper administration of justice unless he gave an undertaking to comply with the Litigants in Person Practice Note. If your business or its officers are self-represented in any matter, respectful conduct, punctuality and disciplined submissions are not optional. They can determine whether the case is allowed to continue.
Outcome: The Federal Court ordered that the proceeding be stayed until the applicant provided a signed written undertaking stating that he had read the Litigants in Person Practice Note and, consistently with paragraphs 4.7 to 4.12, would act respectfully and courteously and would not act in an intimidating, threatening or rude manner when dealing with judges, registrars, court staff and lawyers for other parties, or until further order of the Court. The costs of the 6 May 2026 case management hearing were reserved. The Court held that the applicant’s conduct had caused delay, inefficiency and increased expense, created real unfairness and oppression for the respondent, and risked undermining the proper administration of justice. However, the stay was not permanent and could be lifted if the applicant obtained legal representation, gave a suitable undertaking, or otherwise demonstrated he could conduct the proceeding appropriately.
Peymani v Posh N Polished Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 560
Business owners should read this case as a warning about disputed exits, not as a final ruling on the employee’s underlying allegations. If an employee sends a message that could be read as a proposal, a resignation, or both, confirm the position in writing straight away. If the business rejects a proposal, accepts a resignation, shortens a notice period, changes commission, removes access to systems, advertises the role, or tells the employee not to return, each step should be documented clearly and consistently. The Court’s orders also show that claims can be split. Some allegations may survive an extension application even if others do not. Good records, consistent explanations across forums, and early advice can materially affect what proceeds.
Outcome: Bennett J allowed the extension application in part. The Court ordered that time be extended until 20 December 2025 for the commencement of a court application for the claims made under ss 340 and 344 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The application was not allowed for the balance of the claims under ss 343 and 351. Costs of the extension application were reserved. The proceeding was referred to a Registrar for a half-day mediation on a date not before 8 May 2026, together with any further procedural orders needed if the matter did not resolve. The judgment did not finally determine liability for the underlying workplace allegations.
Reiche v Neometals Ltd [2026] FCAFC 53
Businesses should read this case as a process-and-evidence decision, not as a green light to dismiss or restructure after a complaint. The safer approach is to treat serious reports about misconduct, improper circumstances, misuse of information, conflicts or irregular documents as potentially engaging whistleblower protections, even if they arise through ordinary management channels. Keep careful records of the complaint pathway, who received what information, and the commercial basis for any later employment action. Where possible, separate the people handling the disclosure from the people deciding redundancy or termination. This case also highlights the evidential burden in s 1317AD(2B). Once the applicant points to evidence suggesting a reasonable possibility of detriment, the respondent bears the burden of proving the claim is not made out. That makes contemporaneous documents and credible decision-maker evidence especially important.
Outcome: The Full Federal Court dismissed the appeal on 4 May 2026. The court held that none of the grounds of appeal was established. On the reasons published, the appellant did not show error in the primary judge's approach to the statutory preconditions for relief or in the factual findings about Neometals' reasons for making his role redundant and terminating his employment. The court's discussion confirms that detriment was admitted, but the claim failed on the belief or suspicion and causation elements. The primary judge's findings, as recounted by the Full Court, included that the February and March 2024 board presentations were understood as raising strategic or commercial risks rather than obviously disclosing misconduct or an improper state of affairs, and that the CEO did not regard one April 2024 concern as whistleblowing because it was raised as part of Mr Reiche's role.
Rizkalla v CDC Geelong Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 249
Read this case as a procedural warning, not a merits ruling. The court struck out the employee's amended pleading because it did not give fair notice of the case to be met, but it allowed him to try again. That means an employer can succeed on a strike-out application and still remain in the litigation. If your business is facing a general protections claim, focus early on whether the pleading clearly identifies the workplace rights relied on, the adverse action alleged, the legal provisions said to be breached, and the role of any individual managers. If those basics are missing, a procedural application may be worthwhile. At the same time, do not assume a pleading defect means the underlying risk is low. The facts described in the judgment involve safety complaints, fatigue and rostering concerns, union activity, stand down, investigation and dismissal. Those are common trigger points for adverse action allegations. Businesses should keep decision-making records, investigation documents, correspondence and reasons for disciplinary action clear and consistent from the outset.
Outcome: The Federal Court struck out the amended statement of claim dated 11 September 2025 under r 16.21 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). Justice Horan granted the applicant leave to file and serve a further amended statement of claim by 24 April 2026. The court also ordered the parties to file written submissions on the costs of the interlocutory application and directed them to attend a case management conference before a Registrar to clarify the issues of fact and law in dispute. The ruling did not determine the substantive allegations about adverse action, industrial activity, discrimination, wages, enterprise agreement breaches or dismissal. It was a procedural decision requiring the applicant to replead the case in a clearer form.
Rogers v McDonald’s Australia Ltd [2026] FCA 542
Business owners should read this as a warning about off-the-clock work and about the way employment claims can expand. The Court did not find wrongdoing, but it accepted that the first trial should examine the claims of all witnesses giving evidence and should also deal with the serious contravention issue if contraventions were proved. In practical terms, that means a dispute about a few shifts or a few employees can become a test of how work is actually organised across a business. If staff are expected to arrive early, stay late, complete handovers, prepare stores, lock up, or finish tasks outside paid time, the legal risk is not limited to payroll records alone. Businesses should compare rosters, time records, manager instructions and real workplace practice. Franchisees and passive respondents should also note that findings made at an early trial may still bind them as parties, even if they choose not to play an active role.
Outcome: The Court concluded that the initial trial should be a trial of the claims of all those who were coming to give evidence. In the formal orders, the Court provided that the initial trial would determine liability on all claims for relief relating to the sample employees and sample employers listed in Annexure A, and in respect of the first respondent, including claims under ss 557A and 558B of the Fair Work Act, together with common questions to be specified at the next case management hearing. Lee J also held that the serious contravention issue should be dealt with at the initial trial in respect of the pleaded claims of contravention. Further orders set a structured conferral process, required points of claim for four identified deponents, and listed the matter for a further case management hearing on 31 July 2026.
Roohizadegan v Technology One Limited (No 7) [2026] FCA 187
If your business is in a Fair Work dispute, this case is a reminder to manage the litigation as carefully as the underlying employment issue. The Court looked closely at whether the case was kept within reasonable bounds, whether weak points were dropped once evidence emerged, whether quantum assumptions were realistic, and whether a settlement offer should have been accepted at the time it was made. A Calderbank offer can become the trigger for a costs order if it is commercially realistic and the other side presses on without a realistic path to a better result. Businesses should document who made the relevant employment decision, keep contemporaneous records, test damages claims early, narrow issues where possible, and assess offers against the evidence then available rather than against best-case hopes. The judgment also shows that courts may connect earlier unreasonable conduct with later settlement rejection when deciding whether costs should follow from the offer date.
Outcome: The Court made a partial party-and-party costs order against the applicant. McElwaine J ordered that the applicant pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding from 6 April 2025, with the amount to be determined by a Registrar on a lump sum basis under rule 40.02 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). The judge found that the applicant had run the retrial in an unreasonably expansive way and that, when the respondents made their 6 April 2025 Calderbank offer, the weakness of the applicant's position was objectively clear on the evidence then available. The Court treated the $2.2 million inclusive offer as a genuine commercial compromise and held that the applicant's failure to accept it was unreasonable, especially when considered together with his antecedent conduct in the proceeding.
Turner v Chandler Macleod Group Limited (Costs) [2026] FCA 458
Businesses should read this as a deed-and-release case as much as a costs case. The Court’s earlier strike-out decision, as described in the costs judgment, turned on the view that the claim against Chandler Macleod concerned matters already settled under the CMG Deed, that Chandler Macleod was protected by the release, and that no proper case had been brought to set the deed aside. Those same findings then drove the costs result. If your business settles a workplace dispute, make sure the deed clearly identifies who is released and what claims are covered. If a later claim is filed anyway, get advice early on whether the claim is merely weak or whether it is barred in a way that may justify strike-out relief and a costs application. If you seek lump-sum costs, put on evidence that lets the Court fix a figure without a separate assessment.
Outcome: The Federal Court awarded costs to Chandler Macleod Group Limited. Needham J found that section 570(2) of the Fair Work Act was engaged on two bases: the proceedings against Chandler Macleod were instituted without reasonable cause, and Mr Turner acted unreasonably in pursuing them. The Court relied on the earlier findings that the claim concerned matters already settled under the CMG Deed, that Chandler Macleod was covered by the deed’s release clause, and that no proper basis had been brought to set the deed aside. The Court then exercised its discretion to award costs and ordered Mr Turner to pay Chandler Macleod’s costs in the fixed amount of $20,000 under rule 40.02(b). The proceedings were otherwise dismissed.
Turner v Chandler Macleod Group Limited [2026] FCA 139
Businesses should read this case as a procedural win built on documents, timing and pleading quality. The court did not decide the underlying employment merits after a full trial. Instead, it found the proceeding should not continue because the claims had no reasonable prospect of success, sought to revisit matters already resolved, were inadequately pleaded, and faced limitation problems. The judgment also shows that suppression and redaction orders can have real practical force. Material filed in court is not automatically safe to publish or repeat if it includes without prejudice discussions or unparticularised allegations of fraud or dishonesty. If your business settles a dispute, keep the deed, the surrounding correspondence, and evidence of legal advice opportunities. If a former worker later files a broad claim involving employment status, underpayments, injury, superannuation or long service leave, get early advice on release wording, limitation periods, pleading defects and whether confidential material should be removed from the file.
Outcome: The court struck out the Originating Application and Statement of Claim against the first respondent, Chandler Macleod Group Limited, under r 16.21(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), with no leave to replead. It gave summary judgment for the second to fourth respondents and the fifth respondent under s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). The Statement of Claim was removed from the court file under r 2.28(1)(a) because it contained material that was an abuse of the court's processes. The Originating Application was removed and replaced with a redacted copy under r 2.29(1)(a), deleting paragraphs 8 to 12 under 'Details of Claim'. The court also made interim suppression orders under s 37AF(1) over specified documents and transcript pages until final suppression orders were settled. No costs order was made for the second to fifth respondents at that stage, and the first respondent's costs position was reserved for further submissions.
Verma v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 679
For business owners, this case is not a green light to rely on technical points instead of good people management. It shows that statutory employment claims are tightly structured. A former employee may have multiple overlapping allegations, but some claims can still fail early if the required tribunal process has not been completed or if the court pleading goes beyond the earlier discrimination complaint. The most important practical point is the Fair Work certificate requirement. If a dismissal-related general protections dispute has not gone through the required Fair Work Commission step and no certificate has issued, the Federal Court may have no jurisdiction to hear it. The case also shows that a negligence claim can be struck out for a missing workers compensation step without the court deciding the negligence allegations on their merits. Employers should investigate complaints promptly, document decisions carefully, keep post-dismissal communications accurate, and get advice where Fair Work, discrimination and injury issues overlap.
Outcome: Justice Derrington granted Coles' interlocutory application in part. The court entered judgment for Coles on the pleaded Fair Work claims in [45] and [47] to the extent they related to the matters pleaded in [43(c)], and on the discrimination claims in [50]-[52] and [56]-[58]. The court held that, because no certificate had been issued under s 368(3)(a) of the Fair Work Act, it had no jurisdiction to entertain the relevant general protections claims, and an extension of time could not overcome that problem. The court also concluded there was no error that could support a successful judicial review challenge to the Full Bench decision. The negligence paragraphs [59]-[62] were struck out, not summarily dismissed, because no notice of assessment had been received under s 237 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). Mr Verma's interlocutory applications filed on 11 and 12 May 2026 were dismissed and costs were reserved.
Western Chinese Language School Incorporated v Fair Work Ombudsman
Treat a compliance notice as a live enforcement step, not as an invitation to debate payroll issues at leisure. This case suggests that an inspector can form the required reasonable belief by looking at a course of conduct over time, and that a notice can require the employer to identify affected employees, calculate what should have been paid, rectify underpayments and produce evidence of compliance. If you think the wrong award has been applied, the classifications are wrong, or the calculations need correction, raise that promptly and in writing. Preserve all payroll records and regulator correspondence. If there is a genuine basis to challenge the notice or seek review, do it early. Do not leave key arguments until trial. The appeal also underlines the personal risk for officeholders who are involved in a failure to comply.
Outcome: The Full Court dismissed the appeal. On the published reasons available, the Court rejected the employer's arguments that the compliance notice was invalid because it was based on a course of conduct, because it required the employer to calculate underpayments, or because it lacked sufficient detail. The dismissal left standing the primary judge's findings that the school failed to comply with the notice and that its chairperson was involved in that contravention. It also left in place the remedial orders requiring the school to take the notice steps by 4 September 2025 with interest, and the penalties imposed below. Some finer points of the Court's reasoning should still be checked against the complete judgment text.
Bakers Delight Holdings Ltd v Fair Work Ombudsman
For business owners, the plain English point is this: missing payroll records can change who has to prove what in court. Under s 557C, if an employer was required to keep records or give pay slips about a matter and failed to do so, the employer bears the burden of disproving the allegation. The Full Court said that mechanism can still be used when the regulator is trying to establish the franchisee employer's contravention as the first element of a franchisor claim under s 558B. Franchisees should treat time, pay, leave and pay slip records as core compliance documents. Franchisors should review training, monitoring, complaint pathways and franchise arrangements so they can better show they took reasonable steps to prevent similar contraventions.
Outcome: The Full Federal Court granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal. It held that s 558B should be approached no differently to the accessorial liability provision in s 550 for this purpose. The Court concluded that the Fair Work Ombudsman can rely on s 557C against the employer franchisee and, if the contravention is established by that process, that is capable of satisfying s 558B(1)(a). The Court therefore upheld the primary judge's approach in substance. On the material reviewed, the judgment resolves the proof mechanism issue but does not itself finally determine all alleged underpayments, all liability questions or any penalties in the underlying proceeding.
Department of Employment and Workplace Relations v Howell, in the matter of Castel Electronics Pty Ltd (No 2)
If your business has employees, secured finance and insolvency risk, this case is a warning to map priorities before money is distributed. The Court had already held that the relevant proceeds were circulating assets, which meant the Commonwealth had priority after making Fair Entitlements Guarantee payments to former employees. The later dispute shows that indemnity wording alone may not settle who bears the loss. A later novation, the parties' communications, and pressure not to seek court directions all mattered. Businesses and lenders should read this as a reminder to review indemnities and novations together, keep clear written instructions, and treat qualified legal advice as a sign to slow down rather than a green light. Where the asset characterisation is uncertain and the stakes are high, a directions application may be safer than distributing funds and arguing later.
Outcome: The Court held that Thorn Australia was the indemnifying party. It also held that the contractual exclusions in the indemnity were engaged. However, Thorn Australia was estopped from relying on those exclusions, so the receivers succeeded on the indemnity route despite the exclusions applying on their terms. Because that resolved the practical dispute, the Court said it was unnecessary to determine the alternative claims in mistake, restitution or constructive trust. The orders delivered with the reasons were not yet the final perfected orders on interest and costs, with the parties directed to file agreed minutes or short submissions by 2 February 2026.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (Ironside Case)
Business owners should read this case as a site-control and compliance decision, not as a statement that union entry rights can be ignored. The Court dealt with admitted contraventions, so the key lesson is what kinds of conduct can attract civil penalties once the facts are established. A permit holder exercising an OHS right must comply with a reasonable request by the occupier to comply with an OHS requirement applying to the premises. A permit holder must also not intentionally hinder or obstruct a person, or otherwise act in an improper manner, while exercising right-of-entry rights. The union itself was penalised because it was knowingly concerned in, or party to, the officials' conduct and was therefore taken to have contravened the Act as well. In practice, businesses should have clear site access protocols, identify construction zones properly, train managers on how to make lawful requests, and preserve evidence immediately after any incident.
Outcome: Dowling J made declarations that Mr Simpson, Mr Harris, Mr Mahy and Mr Tzimas had contravened sections 499 and or 500 of the Fair Work Act in the ways set out in the orders. The Court also declared that the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union had contravened sections 499 and 500 because it was directly or indirectly, knowingly concerned in or party to the officials' conduct and was therefore involved in those contraventions under section 550. The Court imposed pecuniary penalties on both the union and the individuals. The union was ordered to pay six penalties totalling $144,000. Separate penalties were imposed on each individual respondent, and all penalties were payable to the Commonwealth within 28 days.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Woolworths Group Limited; Fair Work Ombudsman v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd; Baker v Woolworths Group Limited; Pabalan v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd
Business owners should read this case as a warning against treating an annual salary as a complete compliance solution for award-covered staff. The Court’s summary conclusion was that the relevant set-off clauses only worked within a single pay period, not across a broader 26-week period. That point goes directly to how many salary contracts are drafted and administered. The judgment also shows that courts may resist answering broad, hypothetical payroll questions if they are not tied to real employees, real shifts and real award triggers. In practice, that means employers need contracts that match the actual pay cycle, records that capture hours and relevant award events, and a reconciliation process that tests each pay period against minimum entitlements. If a dispute arises, evidence about actual work patterns will matter more than abstract arguments about how a salary was supposed to operate.
Outcome: On the extract available, the Court’s clearest substantive conclusion was that the relevant set-off clauses were only effective to discharge obligations under the Award within a single pay period. The Court explained, at least in the Woolworths context, that the actual payment obligation was the periodic amount payable under the contract and Award, not a separate annual payment obligation that could be applied across a 26-week period in the way argued. The Court also declined to determine a number of issues because they were framed too hypothetically or were not sufficiently tied to actual employee facts. Rather than finally disposing of all issues across the four proceedings, the Court ordered further case management on 27 October 2025.
Fair Work Ombudsman v 85 Degrees Coffee Australia Pty Ltd
If you run a franchise network, do not assume payroll compliance sits only with the franchisee. This case shows that where head office has strong operational control and warning signs of underpayments or record-keeping failures, the franchisor can face major penalties under s 558B(1) of the Fair Work Act. The practical reading is that franchise compliance systems must be active, not theoretical. Audit rights need to be used. Award coverage, classifications, penalty rates, overtime, leave payments, payslips and records need regular checking. If the regulator raises concerns, or your own audits show problems, you need documented intervention across the network. Prior Fair Work history will make it harder to argue later breaches were isolated or unexpected. Franchisees should also read this carefully. They remain the direct employer and still carry the primary obligation to pay staff correctly and keep compliant records.
Outcome: The Federal Court made extensive declarations of contravention and ordered 85 Degrees Coffee Australia Pty Ltd to pay total penalties of $1,440,000 to the Commonwealth within 60 days of 4 June 2024. Bromwich J treated substantial penalties as clearly appropriate, given the admitted knowledge element, the company’s prior compliance history, the vulnerability of workers, and the need for general deterrence. The Court also considered admissions and contrition, but still imposed a very significant penalty. A correction table issued on 7 June 2024 adjusted some figures in the reasons and schedule, but the final total penalty remained $1,440,000.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Blue Sky Kids Land Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 3)
Read this case as a systems warning. If someone is really your employee, you need the right employing entity, the right award classification, the right pay settings, compliant payslips, accessible time and wage records, and a lawful response if the Fair Work Ombudsman gets involved. Do not assume a complicated company structure will protect you if the day-to-day reality points elsewhere. Do not try to fix a complaint by re-labelling a worker as a contractor, reducing hours without dealing properly with leave and notice consequences, or scrambling to reconstruct records after the event. If inspectors ask for documents, preserve everything and respond carefully. The judgment also underlines that directors or managers may face accessory exposure where they were knowingly involved in the conduct.
Outcome: The published orders show that the Court declared the first respondent contravened the Fair Work Act and Fair Work Regulations in numerous respects, including failures to pay minimum award rates, casual loadings, Saturday and Sunday penalty rates, some public holiday penalty rates, some overtime rates, superannuation contributions, and wages on the required cycle. The orders also show findings that Xing Yang’s accrued untaken annual leave was not paid and that notice of termination or payment in lieu was not given when her full-time employment ended. The catchwords indicate the case also dealt with record-keeping, false or misleading records, notices to produce, general protections, obstruction, serious contraventions and accessory liability, but the full detail should be checked against the complete judgment history.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Make Dough Enterprises (in liquidation)
If you run a franchise network, treat workplace compliance as a live legal risk across the network, not just a franchisee issue. This decision shows that where a franchisee allegedly failed to keep required records, the Ombudsman may still use the Fair Work Act presumption to prove the underlying franchisee contravention in a case against the franchisor. But the franchisor can still defend itself by putting on evidence. In practice, that makes documented compliance systems commercially important. Franchisees should keep complete records of hours, pay rates, overtime, leave and employment status. Franchisors should understand where they may have a significant degree of influence or control, maintain training and audit processes, and keep records of steps taken to prevent contraventions of the same or a similar character. This judgment is best read as a procedural and interpretive ruling that shapes how the later trial can be run, not as the final answer on liability or penalties.
Outcome: The Court answered the separate question in the affirmative. It held that s 557C applies to establish the contravention referred to in s 558B(1)(a), and that it is open to a responsible franchisor to discharge the burden of disproving the relevant allegations. The Court accepted the Ombudsman's construction of the statutory scheme and rejected the idea that the same franchisee contravention must be proved twice under different evidentiary rules. The Court also considered it important that the franchisor not be denied an adequate opportunity to be heard. The proceeding itself was not finally resolved in this judgment. Case management was adjourned to a later date.
Personnel Contracting
A contractor label will not save a labour-hire or contractor model where the legal rights and obligations point to employment. Businesses should draft for the real relationship and run classification checks before scaling a workforce model.
Outcome: The High Court held Mr McCourt was an employee of the labour-hire company. The written agreement mattered, but its substance showed a labour-hire employee relationship rather than an independent business providing services.
ZG Operations v Jamsek
Long-running contractor relationships can still be genuine contractor arrangements where the contracts and business structure support independence, but businesses should not treat that as a free pass.
Outcome: The High Court held the drivers were not employees for the Fair Work claims before it. The contracts were with the partnerships, the partnerships owned and operated the trucks, and the legal rights and obligations pointed away from employment, even though the commercial relationship was long-running and close.
ACCC v Employsure
Read this case as a warning about the whole structure of a paid search campaign. The legal risk did not come only from one phrase in isolation. It came from the combination of the search terms chosen, the dynamic use of those terms in headlines, the ads appearing first, the official-sounding wording, and the absence of Employsure’s name. If your business advertises near a government function, make sure an ordinary user can immediately tell that your business is a private provider. Do not rely on the idea that users will slow down, inspect every detail, or work out that a result is only an ad. Review keywords, headlines, URLs, call extensions and landing pages together. If the campaign works because users think they are clicking on the regulator or an endorsed service, that is exactly the kind of impression that creates ACL risk.
Outcome: The Full Federal Court upheld the ACCC’s appeal. It held that Employsure’s publication of the Google Ads conveyed the alleged government affiliation representations to the ordinary or reasonable member of the relevant class. That conduct contravened s 18 of the ACL and involved false or misleading representations contrary to ss 29(1)(b) and 29(1)(h). The Court set aside the first instance orders, directed the parties to confer on the form of declarations and injunctions, remitted the proceeding to the primary judge for hearing on pecuniary penalty and first instance costs, and ordered Employsure to pay the ACCC’s appeal costs.
WorkPac v Rossato
Employers should use clear casual contracts, but should not treat WorkPac as the whole answer. Casual employment rules changed after the case, so documents, rosters, employee choice rights and current Fair Work guidance all need to be checked together.
Outcome: The High Court allowed WorkPac's appeal. It held that, on the contracts before the Court, Mr Rossato worked assignment by assignment, WorkPac was not bound to offer further work after each assignment, and Mr Rossato was a casual employee for the relevant Fair Work Act and enterprise agreement purposes.
Mondelez v AMWU
Employers should calculate personal/carer's leave through ordinary hours and payroll rules, not informal notions of a calendar day. Shift patterns and enterprise agreements need careful payroll setup.
Outcome: The High Court allowed the appeal and adopted the notional-day approach. In effect, paid personal/carer's leave accrues by reference to ordinary hours of work, not by giving every shift worker 10 full shifts regardless of shift length.