Your preferred office location:
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Author
  4. /
  5. Gemma Wheeler-Carver
  6. /
  7. Contracts: Sometimes worth the paper they’re written on
17 Feb 2022

Senior Associate, Gemma Wheeler-Carver, and Lawyer, Kimberly Jones in our Employment team outlines the high court decision in Personnel Contracting and Jamsek. 

Contract Sign

Last year (2021), the decision in WorkPac Pty Ltd v Rossato (Rossato) provided clarity to business owners about the difference between permanent and casual employees.  The decision emphasised the importance of written contracts in assessing whether a casual employee was legally recognised as ‘casual’.  This decision was significant, and to some surprising, outlining the High Court’s view as to the primacy of a written contract. 

This approach can also be seen in last week’s decisions in Personnel Contracting and Jamsek, where the High Court recognised the importance of a written contract when engaging independent contractors.

HHG Legal Group’s Gemma Wheeler-Carver and Kimberly Jones have put together a summary of both cases and the key takeaways.

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 1 (Personnel Contracting)

On 31 August 2021, the High Court heard an appeal from the Full Federal Court of Australia in Personnel Contracting. In brief, the background to this case is:

  • Mr McCourt was a British backpacker in Perth looking for work;
  • He entered a contractual relationship with Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd (Personnel), signing what was referred to as an Administrative Services Agreement (ASA). The ASA said that Personnel would offer work to Mr McCourt with Personnel’s clients. The ASA described Mr McCourt as a ‘contractor’ (not an employee);
  • Mr McCourt was offered, and accepted, work on a building project with Hanssen Pty Ltd (Hanssen);
  • There was a written contract, between Personnel and Hanssen, to provide labour to Hassen. This was referred to as the Labour Hire Contract (LHA). There was no written contract between Mr McCourt and Hanssen;
  • After the end of the relationship between Mr McCourt and Personnel, Mr McCourt and the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union commenced proceedings against Personnel seeking compensation and penalties against under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FWA). This claim relied on showing that Mr McCourt was an employee of Personnel, rather than a contractor.
  • As an employee, McCourt’s entitlements under the FWA and relevant modern award would including a minimum wage and leave entitlements.

ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd v Jamsek [2022] HCA 2 (Jamsek)

On 1 September 2021, the next day, the High Court heard the appeal in Jamsek (also from the Full Federal Court). Although the facts are different to those in Personnel Contracting, Jamsek is also a key case in setting precedent on the independent contractor or employee issue.  Briefly, the facts are as follows:

  • Until 1985 or 1986 Mr Jamsek and Mr Whitby were employed as truck drivers by the predecessors of ZG Operations Pty Ltd (referred to throughout as ‘ZG Operations’ for ease);
  • In 1985 or 1986 Mr Jamsek and Mr Whitby were asked by ZG Operations to become contractors, which included purchasing their own trucks. Mr Jamsek and Mr Whitby agreed to this, set up partnerships with their spouses to facilitate this arrangement, and purchased the trucks;
  • The partnerships then entered written contracts with ZG Operations to reflect the agreement to hire both their personal services and the trucks;
  • As with Personnel Contracting, after the end of the relationship Mr Jamsek and Mr Whitby brought a claim for unpaid entitlements under the FWA (and also the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth) and the Long Service Leave Act 1955 (NSW)). The success of this claim relied on the Court finding that Mr Jamsek and Mr Whitby were employees of ZG Operations, rather than independent contractors.

The Decisions

Personnel Contracting and Jamsek were both heard by a single judge in the Federal Court, appealed to the Full Court of the Federal Court (comprising 3 judges), and then appealed to the High Court. 

Personnel Contracting

The primary judge decided the Mr McCourt was a contractor.

On appeal, the Full Federal Court upheld this view. It is important to note that the Court made it clear that it was following judgements in similar cases, including an earlier case involving Personnel.  Their Honours noted that, had the Court not been bound by these earlier cases, they would have decided differently.

The High Court, allowing the appeal, found that Mr McCourt was an employee.


The primary judge decided that Mr Jamsek and Mr Whitby were independent contractors.

On appeal, the Full Court allowed the appeal (by Mr Jamsek and Mr Whitby) and decided that Mr Jamsek and Mr Whitby were actually employees.

The High Court’s decision again allowed the appeal (this time by ZG Operations) concluding that Mr Jamsek and Mr Whitby were independent contractors.


There is no definition of an employee in legistation, including in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).  The Court therefore must look to the common law to make this assessment. 

Until Personnel Contracting and Jamsek, the key cases in this area were Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) (Stevens) and Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd (2001) (Hollis).  These cases used what is referred to as the multi-factorial test. This test looks at the whole relationship of the parties when classifying the nature of that relationship.  Importantly, in both these cases the relationships were not fully set out in a written agreement.  As a result, in many cases after Stevens and Hollis, an extensive written contract was considered as just one of many factors which went to defining the relationship and was not given special consideration. 

In Personnel Contracting and Jamsek, the High Court had the opportunity to set out the principles of assessing whether a worker is an employee or contractor in situations where there are comprehensive written contacts.

The High Court found that where there is a comprehensive written contract between the parties and no problem with its validity, the nature of that relationship should be characterised by legal rights and responsibilities under that contract.  This view is in line with the general principle of contract law and indicates that no special status should be given to industrial contracts. 

Personnel Contracting and Jamsek also align with the Rossato decision, which was referred to throughout these judgements.

So, given the primacy of contract, why was Mr McCourt found to be an employee when his contract labelled him a “contractor”?  The Court will not simply accept the label that a relationship in given in a written contract.  The Court, instead, must look at the rights and duties of the parties as established by the written contract to assess the nature of the relationship.

Key Takeaways

Businesses may take comfort that these decisions confirm that the common law principle that parties are free to enter contracts outlining the terms of their relationship, is true in industrial relationships, including that of an independent contractor. 

However, it is crucial that these contracts are well-drafted, precisely outline the intentions of the parties, and clearly set out the rights and duties that attach to an independent contractor relationship.  It is not enough to label the relationship as such.

If you have any questions about employment contracts contact our Employment lawyers for advice by clicking here or call us on (08) 9322 1966.

*This is general information only, and does not constitute specific legal advice. Please consult one of our experienced Legal Team for specific advice relevant to your situation.

Supporting Western Australians for more than 100 years

"Always fast and thorough service. Thank you"

Sitka Pil

"My circumstances at the time I made contact with HHG were dire following my argument being rejected by two no win no fee firms. Following my initial meeting with HHG's employment law team I was left feeling extremely positive by the response and concern shown by HHG in regards to their support of my argument along with their preparedness to pursue an outcome on my behalf.

I accept the fact that nobody really wins in these cases (mental health/ workplace) however the end result was what would be considered most favourable and far in excess of what would have been achieved had I not sought the advice from HHG.

I have no hesitation in recommending HHG to anyone caught up in the messy circumstances I found myself in at the time.

Great advice and five-star commitment to their client!!"

Nathan Lynch

"Thank you for such great assistance with the transaction of Flying Domestics on behalf of Lorna Good. It has been such a pleasure to work with the HHG Legal Group and I look forward to working with you in the future."

Jim Goodwin

"Simon Creek and his team were at all times empathic, professional and confident.  My matter needed to be addressed within a pressing time frame, and their availability at short notice and contact after hours was much appreciated.  It caused me considerable stress, but having such a thoroughly reliable and competent team to call on helped me to feel in control. Although I hope not to need their services again in future, I would be confident in doing so!"

Dr Lana Bell

"A good outcome is what we can expect.  A great outcome is a sign of a company which does the very best for their clients. A very big thank you to Daniel Morris for showing empathy towards my small and much needed legal action.

To HHG Legal Group, thank you for a great outcome.  I would recommend your company to anyone seeking legal services."

Jan Atkinson

"Your support this morning was amazingly kind, not to mention your totally reassuring competence, knowledge and wisdom that you used on my behalf.  It was extremely reassuring to have your knowledgeable support, and I particularly appreciated your real and obvious kindness to me. It means so much at a very difficult time. I'm so grateful to you."

Family Law Client

"Janene was very professional and we established a good rapport quickly. The subject of death and wills can be quite confronting to deal with, however, Janene's approach was soft and accommodating."

Lynette Livesey

"A big thank you to HHG for their professional service, continued support, and wide range of legal knowledge. Our clients have given us nothing but kind words regarding HHG Legal Group and so we have no hesitation in referring and recommending Simon Creek and HHG Legal Group for their outstanding services and legal expertise."

Nigel Plowman, Director at Mckinley Plowman & Associates

"Simon is a friendly and practical legal advisor. I have received great feedback from the clients I have referred to him and his team at HHG Legal Group."

Richard Beal, Director at BDO

"Over the last few years, I have been impressed by Simon’s legal ability, management skills, entrepreneurial spirit, personal integrity and people skills. He appears to be that rare breed of lawyer – both knowledgeable and commercial."

Michael Malone, Founder of iiNet

"Our family has been a client of HHG Legal Group over many years.  Business has included drawing up of wills for three generations and preparing of probate for my father in law. I would have no hesitation in recommending HHG Legal Group to anyone requiring such services."

Bernice Climie

"You should be congratulated for the manner in which your staff address clients and we found our dealings with your company, once again a very pleasant experience and we would like to truly thank you for your efforts."

Steve Harvey and Jane Powell

"HHG Legal were absolutely fantastic. Extremely responsive and brought calm to our chaotic family situation through their knowledge and caring attitude. Extremely professional from our very first contact with them and they expertly guided our family though the required legal process over almost a 12 month period."

Amanda Williamson

"Fantastic team! They really care about their client. Tim Colcutt is a 'go that extra mile' guy who gives his client his all. I can't recommend HHG and Tim enough."

Kerry Samson

"I had a fantastic lawyer in Matthew Lilly. He helped me out a great deal with good, sound advice in a friendly, professional manner. First class, thanks Matthew"

Graeme Hammond

"Marine Plant Systems has been working with HHG Legal Group for a few years now and they continually provide first-class service. Their professional advice has been invaluable to our company."

Carolin Grimm - Marine Plant Systems

"We were kept up to date at all times. Pricing was always updated over the time period so we remained "in budget". Personal access to someone whenever I had questions. All in all a great experience without too much fuss."

Rosslyn Tasker - COO Altusq Pty Ltd

"Good service you can count on."

Miles Lee

"HHG Legal Group has provided outstanding support as I have taken the journey of buying a business, their professionalism is beyond reproach. Their assistance throughout the Due Diligence process has been invaluable, I would fully recommend them."

Mark Armitage

"Very friendly and efficient service - what a pleasure working with Matthew."

Jacques Taylor

"I highly recommend Daniel from HHG Lawyer in Mandurah. When dealing with a complicated legal property matter recently I was extremely impressed by Daniel's honesty and integrity and the legal advice I received. I am very happy with the service from HHG Legal."

Tony Walker

"Lisa, thank you so much for representing me in court, honestly, I would not have had the outcome I got without you. Once again, Thank you so much."


"Matthew Lilly was excellent in processing our project. He achieved the excellent result that we required on our project.

We would give Matthew a 5 star rating.

We will definitely commission Matthew for any further projects if we have the need."


"I have had the pleasure of being represented by Ms Lisa Riley. Lisa helped me in December 2020 when I was charged. Lisa was extremely supportive, reassuring, and preserved with her investigation of the laws and was able to save me from a terrible outcome. Another incident occurred in August 2021 in which I sought Lisa’s help. Lisa preserved and was very patient with me. This only got resolved this year. When she advised me that she was leaving her old firm, I insisted that she remain my lawyer, as I had the utmost faith in her. Hence I moved over to HHG. Lisa took no shortcuts in my defence and continued to preserve for the toxicology report that ultimately saved me. She kept me up-to-date with the progress and provided support. Having someone as understanding as Lisa was a huge gift, to me and my family. You have gained a huge asset in Lisa joining your firm.

Thank you, Lisa, forever grateful for your work, and if ever needed, I will be sure to refer to you"


"We can highly recommend HHG Legal Group and particularly Mr Blair Campbell (Special Counsel / Dispute Resolution)

Blair worked with us as we navigated a very difficult third party dispute.

Blair’s expertise, wisdom, and the way he guided us in a very measured and calm manner gave us great encouragement and comfort. Blair helped us to focus on what we needed to and to trust the process.

Blair was always responsive to us, he always got back to us very promptly to answer our questions and to help us to step through some really hard days.

We are very grateful for Blair’s expertise and wisdom along with his empathy and care, this truly made the difference for us."

Wayne and Janice Belcher

Preferred office location:

Please select your nearest office location so we can show you the most relevant information.