← All Authorities
Australia Leading Case construction interpretationformation

WorkPac Pty Ltd v Rossato

(2021) 271 CLR 456
JurisdictionAustralia
CourtHigh Court of Australia
Year2021
StatusBinding authority

Summary

A casual employee's status is determined by the contractual terms at engagement; regularity of work pattern does not transform casual employment into permanent employment.

Key Principle

The HCA held that a casual employee is properly characterised by the contractual terms at the time of engagement; a regular and systematic pattern of work does not transform a casual engagement into permanent employment.

Area of Law

employment

Related Cases

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd (2022) 275 CLR 165

Employee/independent contractor characterisation is determined by the legal rights and obligations in the written contract, not the totality of the relationship.

ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd v Jamsek (2022) 275 CLR 215

HCA confirmed that employee/contractor distinction is determined by contractual terms alone, rejecting the multi-factorial totality-of-relationship test.

Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd v Automotive Food Metals Engineering Printing and Kindred Industries Union (2020) 271 CLR 23

Under the Fair Work Act, 'ten days' of paid personal leave means ten notional days (based on ordinary hours), not ten shifts, regardless of shift length.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of WorkPac Pty Ltd v Rossato and how it applies to your situation.

Explain WorkPac Pty Ltd v Rossato