The interesting aspect of the High Court’s reasoning is the insistence on the primacy of binding contractual promises as an indicator of the character of the employment, rather than unenforceable expectations or understandings, or the parties’ wider relationship. The absence of enforceable promises of continuing employment indicated casual employment. This is an important statement of the law and the judicial function.

Brett Walker SC, Ian Neil SC, David Chin SC and Christopher Parkin represented the appellant.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.