The ACT Court of Appeal held that a casual builders' labourer engaged over many years at an hourly rate was, on the facts, capable of being characterised as either an employee or independent contractor at common law, and the Magistrate's finding of independent contractor status was open. However, the Court unanimously held that even if the worker was an independent contractor, he was a deemed worker under s 11 of the Workers Compensation Act 1951 (ACT) because his engagement had been on a 'regular and systematic basis' — a concept that does not require predictability of hours, set reporting obligations, or uniformity, but rather a repetitive pattern of engagement reflecting ongoing reliance on the worker's services as an incident of the employer's business. Madgwick J, in a concurring judgment, would have also found the worker was a common law employee at the time of injury, emphasising that the nature of the contractual relationship may evolve over time despite the absence of express new terms.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 58 later cases that cite this judgment.
8 of the 58 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.