John Holland Pty Ltd v Lewis

[2004] NTCA 9

NT Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Workers Compensation
2. › Definition of 'worker'
3. › PAYE taxpayer requirement
4. › Whether deductions not made because of shortness of time or because of unlawful cash arrangement
5. › Work Health Act (NT)
1. Workers Compensation
2. › Onus of proof
3. › Whether legal burden of proving status as 'worker' rests on claimant throughout
4. › Whether presumption of compliance with taxation law shifts burden to employer
5. › Work Health Act (NT)
1. Evidence
2. › Presumptions
3. › Presumption of compliance with law
4. › Whether [name withheld] v KP Welding creates rebuttable presumption of law or merely permits logical inference from facts
1. Workers Compensation
2. › Contract of employment
3. › Whether trial period and subsequent engagement constituted one or two contracts
4. › Condition subsequent
5. › Work Health Act (NT), transitional provisions

Quick Take

Herbert v KP Welding Constructions Pty Ltd (1995) 125 FLR 299 does not create a rebuttable presumption that parties to an employment contract will comply with taxation obligations; it merely permits a logical inference of compliance where there is no evidence to the contrary. Where there is evidence of an unlawful cash payment arrangement, the onus remains on the claimant to prove 'worker' status under the Work Health Act (NT) and no burden shifts to the employer.

Case Details

Citation[2004] NTCA 9

CourtNTCA

JurisdictionNorthern Territory

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members.

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in