High Court overturns decision for casuals to claim paid leave entitlements

Syvannah Harper
 wooden judge hammer

The High Court of Australia has overturned the Federal Court decision in WorkPac v Rossato [2020] FCAFC 84 in a unanimous decision putting an end to the idea that some casual workers may be entitled to leave entitlements, such as annual leave, sick leave, and holiday pay.

Employer groups have claimed this decision will stop potential backpay claim against employers totalling $40 billion.


Previous decisions

In 2018, the Full Court of the Federal Court[1] found that, in the absence of a definition of casual employment under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FWA), the courts would look at the true nature of the employment relationship. This is regardless of whether an employer calls the arrangement “casual”.


In fact, the court made the finding that a casual employee was actually a permanent employee (and entitled to accrue leave and other benefits), the written terms of the enterprise agreement and employment contact expressly stating the employment was casual.


In making this decision, the Court looked at the employee’s pattern of work and determined that his work was regular, systematic and predictable, and that meant it had the characteristics of permanent employment, not casual employment.


The recent High Court decision

In this recent decision, Mr Rossato (the applicant) worked for WorkPac as a production coal mine employee for a period of four years on six separate consecutive casual contracts between 2014 and 2018 (collectively, Employment Contracts).


Throughout his employment with WorkPac, Mr Rossato was treated as a casual employee and was paid pursuant to the Workpac Pty Ltd Mining (Coal) Industry Enterprise Agreement 2012 (EBA) as a casual employee. Under the EBA a casual employee was entitled to be paid a higher rate of pay, however, was not entitled to accrue statutory leave entitlements such as annual leave, sick leave, and holiday pay.


After ceasing employment with Workpac in 2018, Mr Rossato claimed that he was a permanent employee on the basis that his employment was ongoing, regular and systematic pursuant to the Federal Court case law. Accordingly, Mr Rossato claimed he was entitled to be paid his outstanding leave entitlements under the FWA and the EBA.


The High Court found that a casual employee is an employee who has no “firm advance commitment of work from an employer as to the duration of the employee’s employment or the day (or hours) the employee will work”. However, it stated that “a mere expectation of continuing employment on a regular and systematic basis is not sufficient” to render the employment permanent in nature.


The High Court found that Mr Rossato’s employment was truly casual, having regard to the following facts:


Mr Rossato was engaged on an “assignment-by assignment basis”;

he was entitled to accept or reject any offer of employment;

WorkPac was not under any obligation to offer any further assignments and there was no commitment to ongoing employment beyond the completion of each assignment, and

the casual assignments could be varied or terminated with minimal notice.


The Hight Court also held that where an employment agreement expressly states the nature of the employment relationship, and the parties adhere to the terms, there must be a firm advance commitment of work found within the terms of the agreement for the employee to be considered otherwise. In this matter, the employment contracts provided for variations of Mr Rossato’s daily working hours and assignment length, supporting the casual nature of the employment.


What does this mean for employers?

The High Court’s decision in Workpac v Rossato provides clarity for employers who engage casual employees under a contract of employment.


In addition to the High Court’s decision in Rossato, there have been legislative changes to the FWA whereby a definition of casual employment has been added (Amending Legislation).


The Rossato decision and the Amending Legislation provides greater certainty to employers on the nature of the employment relationship where a casual contract of employment does not give rise to “a firm commitment to ongoing employment”.


Employers should get in contact with CJM Lawyers now to have their casual contracts of employment reviewed to ensure that terms for casual employees support the nature of the work being performed.


 
[1] WorkPac Pty Ltd v Skene [2018] FCAFC 131

Contact Us Now!

For comprehensive legal services, 
book now for your free initial consultation.

Contact Us

Book Now!

Property & Conveyancing
Guarantor  Advice
Commercial & Business
Wills and Estates
Building Disputes
Employment Law
Corporate & Commercial 
Litigation
Regulatory Compliance
Retail & commercial leasing, business transactions, company & trust sales, property development, guarantor advice

Contact Us Now!

For comprehensive legal services, 
book now for your free initial consultation.

Contact Us

Book Us Now!

Property & Conveyancing
Guarantor  Advice
Commercial & Business
Wills and Estates
Building Disputes
Employment Law
Corporate & Commercial 
Litigation
Regulatory Compliance
Retail & commercial leasing, business transactions, company & trust sales, property development, guarantor advice

Our Latest Story

By Luis Gonzalez 20 January 2026
A Practical Perspective for NSW and Queensland Matters In New South Wales and Queensland, the legal profession is fused. Both solicitors and barristers are qualified legal practitioners, and there is no procedural requirement to brief counsel at any particular stage of a matter. That often leads clients to delay the decision. In practice, the question is not whether a barrister is required, but whether the matter has reached a point where the risks involved justify specialist advocacy and advice. Engaging a barrister is not a sign that a dispute has escalated beyond control. It is a strategic decision about how that dispute should be managed. What a Barrister Actually Brings to a Matter Barristers are commonly associated with court appearances and trials. In reality, much of their value lies well before a matter reaches a hearing. They are trained to analyse risk, test legal arguments, and anticipate how a court is likely to respond to a case as it develops. Early involvement often focuses on advising on prospects, settling pleadings, shaping evidence, and identifying which issues genuinely matter. In many cases, this prevents problems that become expensive or impossible to correct later. The Importance of Timing One of the most common points at which counsel should be considered is before pleadings are finalised. Once pleadings are filed, positions harden. Admissions may be made inadvertently, causes of action may be poorly framed, and procedural vulnerabilities may be exposed. Fixing these issues later usually involves contested applications and additional cost. Similarly, when interlocutory applications are threatened or underway, the stakes increase quickly. Applications such as strike-outs, summary judgment, or injunctions can determine the direction of a matter long before trial. These are moments where technical precision and courtroom experience matter. Another common trigger is when a dispute turns on a narrow or unsettled point of law. Some cases are fact driven. Others are decided almost entirely on statutory interpretation or competing authorities. Where that is the case, specialist advice is not a luxury – it is essential. Costs Risk and Commercial Reality Litigation is not just about the merits of a claim. It is also about costs exposure. As matters progress, the financial consequences of getting strategy wrong increase. A barrister can provide clear advice on when to push forward, when to reassess, and when settlement should be actively pursued. There is a persistent misconception that briefing counsel necessarily increases costs. In practice, targeted advice at the right time often reduces overall expenditure by narrowing issues, avoiding unnecessary applications, and strengthening settlement positions. NSW and Queensland Considerations While the core principles are consistent across jurisdictions, procedural culture differs slightly. In New South Wales, courts tend to scrutinise pleadings closely and are more receptive to early dispositive applications. This often makes early engagement of counsel particularly valuable. Queensland courts are generally more pragmatic in their approach to case management, but the risk profile still shifts sharply once a matter moves beyond informal negotiation or becomes procedurally complex. In both jurisdictions, the underlying question remains the same: what is the consequence if the current approach is wrong? A Collaborative Model Engaging a barrister does not mean the solicitor steps aside. The solicitor remains responsible for carriage of the matter, evidence gathering, and client communication. Counsel provides a complementary skill set: strategic distance, advocacy experience, and deep familiarity with how courts approach particular issues. The most effective outcomes are usually achieved where solicitors and barristers work together early, rather than when counsel is briefed reactively on the eve of a hearing. Conclusion There is no fixed rule as to when a barrister should be engaged. However, most disputes reach a point where the risks – legal, procedural, or financial, change materially. At that point, the real question is not whether engaging a barrister is necessary, but whether proceeding without one is a risk worth taking. Disputes can arise in everyday life – with neighbours, family members, business partners, landlords, builders, or customers. Often, they start small and quickly become stressful, emotional, and hard to manage. Our litigation team helps you understand your options early, cut through the noise, and work towards the best possible outcome by providing the necessary advice and action. Don’t face the situation alone, talk to CJM Lawyers today!
By John (Ta-Chun) Chou 15 January 2026
Buying a business is an exciting venture, but the legal "to-do list" looks different depending on which side of the Tweed River you are on. Whether you’re eyeing a café in Surfers Paradise or a boutique in Byron Bay, navigating the transition from the current owner to you requires a sharp eye on the details. ​Here are the four key areas where the rules change between Queensland and New South Wales. ​ 1. The Contract of Sale ​In Queensland, we typically use the REIQ Business Sale Contract. In NSW, it’s common to use the Law Society/Real Estate Institute version. While both cover the basics, they handle "dispute resolution" and "vendor warranties" (the promises the seller makes about the business) differently. With years of experience in commercial law, CJM Lawyers will ensure the contract is tailored to the specific laws of the state where the business is located. ​ 2. The Lease: Your Business's Home ​The lease is often the most valuable asset you’ll take over. ​In QLD: The Retail Shop Leases Act has very strict rules about "Disclosure Statements" that the landlord must give you. ​In NSW: The Retail Leases Act applies, which has its own specific timelines and forms. If the landlord doesn’t provide the right paperwork at the right time in either state, it can lead to massive headaches or even the right to walk away from the lease later. Both Acts play a crucial role in preventing any hidden issues from the landlord and assignor that could surprise you after a transfer or the start of a lease. CJM Lawyers, as a trustworthy solicitor, will ensure that all necessary disclosures are made before you make a decision. ​3. The "Tax Trap": Transfer Duty ​This is the biggest difference between the two states: ​ Queensland: You generally still have to pay Transfer Duty (stamp duty) on the value of the business assets (like equipment and goodwill). This is an extra cost you must budget for. ​NSW: In most cases, NSW has abolished stamp duty on the transfer of "intangible" business assets like goodwill. However, you might still pay duty if the sale includes land or certain other interests. With CJM Lawyers, experienced in commercial transactions across both jurisdictions, we help you understand the nuances to avoid unexpected late penalties or potential legal actions from the state revenue office. ​4. Taking Over the Team (Staff) ​While the Fair Work Act is national, the way we "adjust" the price for employee leave at settlement is a matter of contract. Specifically, the REIQ contract usually grants a 70% credit to the Buyer for accrued leave on its standard terms, while NSW’s law society or REI contract may not be explicit in this regard in detail. Regardless of the difference, it is still open to negotiation between you and the seller. We, CJM Lawyers, make sure that if you are taking on staff who have years of accrued long service leave or annual leave, the seller gives you a fair discount on the purchase price, so you aren't left footing the bill alone later. ​How We Can Help ​Mastering both QLD and NSW means we understand the nuances of both systems. CJM Lawyers will act as your advisor, identifying risks like hidden debts on equipment or tricky lease terms, before you sign on the dotted line. If you’re considering buying a business, early legal advice can save you time, money and stress. Contact CJM Lawyers today to start the conversation.
woman in red going through invoices during holidays
By December 2025 Edition 11 December 2025
Discover practical ways to handle unpaid invoices before the holidays. Recover money owed, improve cash flow, and keep your business running smoothly.
Show More

Our Latest Story

By Luis Gonzalez 20 January 2026
A Practical Perspective for NSW and Queensland Matters In New South Wales and Queensland, the legal profession is fused. Both solicitors and barristers are qualified legal practitioners, and there is no procedural requirement to brief counsel at any particular stage of a matter. That often leads clients to delay the decision. In practice, the question is not whether a barrister is required, but whether the matter has reached a point where the risks involved justify specialist advocacy and advice. Engaging a barrister is not a sign that a dispute has escalated beyond control. It is a strategic decision about how that dispute should be managed. What a Barrister Actually Brings to a Matter Barristers are commonly associated with court appearances and trials. In reality, much of their value lies well before a matter reaches a hearing. They are trained to analyse risk, test legal arguments, and anticipate how a court is likely to respond to a case as it develops. Early involvement often focuses on advising on prospects, settling pleadings, shaping evidence, and identifying which issues genuinely matter. In many cases, this prevents problems that become expensive or impossible to correct later. The Importance of Timing One of the most common points at which counsel should be considered is before pleadings are finalised. Once pleadings are filed, positions harden. Admissions may be made inadvertently, causes of action may be poorly framed, and procedural vulnerabilities may be exposed. Fixing these issues later usually involves contested applications and additional cost. Similarly, when interlocutory applications are threatened or underway, the stakes increase quickly. Applications such as strike-outs, summary judgment, or injunctions can determine the direction of a matter long before trial. These are moments where technical precision and courtroom experience matter. Another common trigger is when a dispute turns on a narrow or unsettled point of law. Some cases are fact driven. Others are decided almost entirely on statutory interpretation or competing authorities. Where that is the case, specialist advice is not a luxury – it is essential. Costs Risk and Commercial Reality Litigation is not just about the merits of a claim. It is also about costs exposure. As matters progress, the financial consequences of getting strategy wrong increase. A barrister can provide clear advice on when to push forward, when to reassess, and when settlement should be actively pursued. There is a persistent misconception that briefing counsel necessarily increases costs. In practice, targeted advice at the right time often reduces overall expenditure by narrowing issues, avoiding unnecessary applications, and strengthening settlement positions. NSW and Queensland Considerations While the core principles are consistent across jurisdictions, procedural culture differs slightly. In New South Wales, courts tend to scrutinise pleadings closely and are more receptive to early dispositive applications. This often makes early engagement of counsel particularly valuable. Queensland courts are generally more pragmatic in their approach to case management, but the risk profile still shifts sharply once a matter moves beyond informal negotiation or becomes procedurally complex. In both jurisdictions, the underlying question remains the same: what is the consequence if the current approach is wrong? A Collaborative Model Engaging a barrister does not mean the solicitor steps aside. The solicitor remains responsible for carriage of the matter, evidence gathering, and client communication. Counsel provides a complementary skill set: strategic distance, advocacy experience, and deep familiarity with how courts approach particular issues. The most effective outcomes are usually achieved where solicitors and barristers work together early, rather than when counsel is briefed reactively on the eve of a hearing. Conclusion There is no fixed rule as to when a barrister should be engaged. However, most disputes reach a point where the risks – legal, procedural, or financial, change materially. At that point, the real question is not whether engaging a barrister is necessary, but whether proceeding without one is a risk worth taking. Disputes can arise in everyday life – with neighbours, family members, business partners, landlords, builders, or customers. Often, they start small and quickly become stressful, emotional, and hard to manage. Our litigation team helps you understand your options early, cut through the noise, and work towards the best possible outcome by providing the necessary advice and action. Don’t face the situation alone, talk to CJM Lawyers today!
By John (Ta-Chun) Chou 15 January 2026
Buying a business is an exciting venture, but the legal "to-do list" looks different depending on which side of the Tweed River you are on. Whether you’re eyeing a café in Surfers Paradise or a boutique in Byron Bay, navigating the transition from the current owner to you requires a sharp eye on the details. ​Here are the four key areas where the rules change between Queensland and New South Wales. ​ 1. The Contract of Sale ​In Queensland, we typically use the REIQ Business Sale Contract. In NSW, it’s common to use the Law Society/Real Estate Institute version. While both cover the basics, they handle "dispute resolution" and "vendor warranties" (the promises the seller makes about the business) differently. With years of experience in commercial law, CJM Lawyers will ensure the contract is tailored to the specific laws of the state where the business is located. ​ 2. The Lease: Your Business's Home ​The lease is often the most valuable asset you’ll take over. ​In QLD: The Retail Shop Leases Act has very strict rules about "Disclosure Statements" that the landlord must give you. ​In NSW: The Retail Leases Act applies, which has its own specific timelines and forms. If the landlord doesn’t provide the right paperwork at the right time in either state, it can lead to massive headaches or even the right to walk away from the lease later. Both Acts play a crucial role in preventing any hidden issues from the landlord and assignor that could surprise you after a transfer or the start of a lease. CJM Lawyers, as a trustworthy solicitor, will ensure that all necessary disclosures are made before you make a decision. ​3. The "Tax Trap": Transfer Duty ​This is the biggest difference between the two states: ​ Queensland: You generally still have to pay Transfer Duty (stamp duty) on the value of the business assets (like equipment and goodwill). This is an extra cost you must budget for. ​NSW: In most cases, NSW has abolished stamp duty on the transfer of "intangible" business assets like goodwill. However, you might still pay duty if the sale includes land or certain other interests. With CJM Lawyers, experienced in commercial transactions across both jurisdictions, we help you understand the nuances to avoid unexpected late penalties or potential legal actions from the state revenue office. ​4. Taking Over the Team (Staff) ​While the Fair Work Act is national, the way we "adjust" the price for employee leave at settlement is a matter of contract. Specifically, the REIQ contract usually grants a 70% credit to the Buyer for accrued leave on its standard terms, while NSW’s law society or REI contract may not be explicit in this regard in detail. Regardless of the difference, it is still open to negotiation between you and the seller. We, CJM Lawyers, make sure that if you are taking on staff who have years of accrued long service leave or annual leave, the seller gives you a fair discount on the purchase price, so you aren't left footing the bill alone later. ​How We Can Help ​Mastering both QLD and NSW means we understand the nuances of both systems. CJM Lawyers will act as your advisor, identifying risks like hidden debts on equipment or tricky lease terms, before you sign on the dotted line. If you’re considering buying a business, early legal advice can save you time, money and stress. Contact CJM Lawyers today to start the conversation.
woman in red going through invoices during holidays
By December 2025 Edition 11 December 2025
Discover practical ways to handle unpaid invoices before the holidays. Recover money owed, improve cash flow, and keep your business running smoothly.
Show More

Our Latest Story

By Luis Gonzalez 20 January 2026
A Practical Perspective for NSW and Queensland Matters In New South Wales and Queensland, the legal profession is fused. Both solicitors and barristers are qualified legal practitioners, and there is no procedural requirement to brief counsel at any particular stage of a matter. That often leads clients to delay the decision. In practice, the question is not whether a barrister is required, but whether the matter has reached a point where the risks involved justify specialist advocacy and advice. Engaging a barrister is not a sign that a dispute has escalated beyond control. It is a strategic decision about how that dispute should be managed. What a Barrister Actually Brings to a Matter Barristers are commonly associated with court appearances and trials. In reality, much of their value lies well before a matter reaches a hearing. They are trained to analyse risk, test legal arguments, and anticipate how a court is likely to respond to a case as it develops. Early involvement often focuses on advising on prospects, settling pleadings, shaping evidence, and identifying which issues genuinely matter. In many cases, this prevents problems that become expensive or impossible to correct later. The Importance of Timing One of the most common points at which counsel should be considered is before pleadings are finalised. Once pleadings are filed, positions harden. Admissions may be made inadvertently, causes of action may be poorly framed, and procedural vulnerabilities may be exposed. Fixing these issues later usually involves contested applications and additional cost. Similarly, when interlocutory applications are threatened or underway, the stakes increase quickly. Applications such as strike-outs, summary judgment, or injunctions can determine the direction of a matter long before trial. These are moments where technical precision and courtroom experience matter. Another common trigger is when a dispute turns on a narrow or unsettled point of law. Some cases are fact driven. Others are decided almost entirely on statutory interpretation or competing authorities. Where that is the case, specialist advice is not a luxury – it is essential. Costs Risk and Commercial Reality Litigation is not just about the merits of a claim. It is also about costs exposure. As matters progress, the financial consequences of getting strategy wrong increase. A barrister can provide clear advice on when to push forward, when to reassess, and when settlement should be actively pursued. There is a persistent misconception that briefing counsel necessarily increases costs. In practice, targeted advice at the right time often reduces overall expenditure by narrowing issues, avoiding unnecessary applications, and strengthening settlement positions. NSW and Queensland Considerations While the core principles are consistent across jurisdictions, procedural culture differs slightly. In New South Wales, courts tend to scrutinise pleadings closely and are more receptive to early dispositive applications. This often makes early engagement of counsel particularly valuable. Queensland courts are generally more pragmatic in their approach to case management, but the risk profile still shifts sharply once a matter moves beyond informal negotiation or becomes procedurally complex. In both jurisdictions, the underlying question remains the same: what is the consequence if the current approach is wrong? A Collaborative Model Engaging a barrister does not mean the solicitor steps aside. The solicitor remains responsible for carriage of the matter, evidence gathering, and client communication. Counsel provides a complementary skill set: strategic distance, advocacy experience, and deep familiarity with how courts approach particular issues. The most effective outcomes are usually achieved where solicitors and barristers work together early, rather than when counsel is briefed reactively on the eve of a hearing. Conclusion There is no fixed rule as to when a barrister should be engaged. However, most disputes reach a point where the risks – legal, procedural, or financial, change materially. At that point, the real question is not whether engaging a barrister is necessary, but whether proceeding without one is a risk worth taking. Disputes can arise in everyday life – with neighbours, family members, business partners, landlords, builders, or customers. Often, they start small and quickly become stressful, emotional, and hard to manage. Our litigation team helps you understand your options early, cut through the noise, and work towards the best possible outcome by providing the necessary advice and action. Don’t face the situation alone, talk to CJM Lawyers today!
By John (Ta-Chun) Chou 15 January 2026
Buying a business is an exciting venture, but the legal "to-do list" looks different depending on which side of the Tweed River you are on. Whether you’re eyeing a café in Surfers Paradise or a boutique in Byron Bay, navigating the transition from the current owner to you requires a sharp eye on the details. ​Here are the four key areas where the rules change between Queensland and New South Wales. ​ 1. The Contract of Sale ​In Queensland, we typically use the REIQ Business Sale Contract. In NSW, it’s common to use the Law Society/Real Estate Institute version. While both cover the basics, they handle "dispute resolution" and "vendor warranties" (the promises the seller makes about the business) differently. With years of experience in commercial law, CJM Lawyers will ensure the contract is tailored to the specific laws of the state where the business is located. ​ 2. The Lease: Your Business's Home ​The lease is often the most valuable asset you’ll take over. ​In QLD: The Retail Shop Leases Act has very strict rules about "Disclosure Statements" that the landlord must give you. ​In NSW: The Retail Leases Act applies, which has its own specific timelines and forms. If the landlord doesn’t provide the right paperwork at the right time in either state, it can lead to massive headaches or even the right to walk away from the lease later. Both Acts play a crucial role in preventing any hidden issues from the landlord and assignor that could surprise you after a transfer or the start of a lease. CJM Lawyers, as a trustworthy solicitor, will ensure that all necessary disclosures are made before you make a decision. ​3. The "Tax Trap": Transfer Duty ​This is the biggest difference between the two states: ​ Queensland: You generally still have to pay Transfer Duty (stamp duty) on the value of the business assets (like equipment and goodwill). This is an extra cost you must budget for. ​NSW: In most cases, NSW has abolished stamp duty on the transfer of "intangible" business assets like goodwill. However, you might still pay duty if the sale includes land or certain other interests. With CJM Lawyers, experienced in commercial transactions across both jurisdictions, we help you understand the nuances to avoid unexpected late penalties or potential legal actions from the state revenue office. ​4. Taking Over the Team (Staff) ​While the Fair Work Act is national, the way we "adjust" the price for employee leave at settlement is a matter of contract. Specifically, the REIQ contract usually grants a 70% credit to the Buyer for accrued leave on its standard terms, while NSW’s law society or REI contract may not be explicit in this regard in detail. Regardless of the difference, it is still open to negotiation between you and the seller. We, CJM Lawyers, make sure that if you are taking on staff who have years of accrued long service leave or annual leave, the seller gives you a fair discount on the purchase price, so you aren't left footing the bill alone later. ​How We Can Help ​Mastering both QLD and NSW means we understand the nuances of both systems. CJM Lawyers will act as your advisor, identifying risks like hidden debts on equipment or tricky lease terms, before you sign on the dotted line. If you’re considering buying a business, early legal advice can save you time, money and stress. Contact CJM Lawyers today to start the conversation.
woman in red going through invoices during holidays
By December 2025 Edition 11 December 2025
Discover practical ways to handle unpaid invoices before the holidays. Recover money owed, improve cash flow, and keep your business running smoothly.
Show More

Our Client Say

Our Client Say

Our Client Say