Black book with a gavel icon.

News – The Verdict is in: Casual Employment Defined

O'Reilly Stevens Lawyers • 2 November 2021

On the 4th of August 2021, the High Court of Australia delivered a significant unanimous decision in Workpac Pty Ltd v Rossato [2021] HCA 23. On one hand the decision provides a “stable” definition of what casual employment is; and on the other hand, an opportunity for rogue employers to exploit another potential loophole.


The nature of casual employment and the quest for a clear definition has been an intense battleground for not only the courts but federal and state parliaments also. Indeed, the Workpac case is a culmination of years of disputation.

Mr Rossato was employed by the labour-hire company Workpac from 2014 to 2018. Workpac sent Mr Rossato to the Collinsville mine operated by Glecore for six different projects throughout his employment. Workpac during that period treated Mr Rossato as a casual employee. The issue was whether or not Mr Rossato was entitled to unpaid annual leave, public holidays, and periods of personal and compassionate leave. Workpac swiftly sought clarity from the Federal Court, but the matter found its way to the High Court of Australia.


The decision was reached by scrutinising the General Conditions, the Enterprise Agreement, and six separate assignment contracts. Crucially, it was decided that after signing an employment contract, the conduct of both parties does not matter. The High Court has held that the amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009, by the inclusion of the ‘firm advance commitment’ into the definition of casual employee, has displaced all legal precedents which previously concerned the conduct of the parties after the contract was entered into. Such conduct is now irrelevant. It matters no longer. This is all out the window.


To be more than a casual employee, an individual must prove that there has been a firm advance commitment agreed to by the employer when the contract was entered into. However, the employment contract and any enterprise agreement will also demonstrate what the conditions of a person’s employment are.


In an era where certainty of rights in the employment sector is desired almost as much as water for every human being, the High Court has permitted an interpretation which permits the law to be curved. ‘Firm advance commitment’ is a phrase that may or may not be exploited. The benefits, or damage, of such a vague definition are yet to be seen.





O'Reilly Stevens Lawyers • 2 November 2021
Close-up of wooden gavel, books, and handcuffs, representing criminal law.
29 July 2026
Pleading guilty in QLD? Understand sentence discounts & the court process. Criminal Law in Cairns is handled by O'Reilly Stevens Lawyers. Click for info.
A lawyer and a client shaking hands across a desk, with another lawyer signing a document.
20 July 2026
Learn what a solicitor lawyer can do for you in Cairns. O'Reilly Stevens Lawyers offers decades of local experience. Call to book a consultation today.
by Zip Co Limited v Firstmac Limited 10 July 2026
On appeal from the Full Federal Court, the recent High Court decision of Zip Co Limited v Firstmac Limited [2026] HCA 16 provides clarity regarding when the defence to infringement of a trade mark of honest concurrent use is to be assessed and the meaning of “honest”. The plurality held that:  “[5] …the time at which the defences of honest concurrent use are to be assessed is the time of each alleged potential infringement. And the content of the requirement of honesty under s 44(3)(a) is that an alleged infringer must have a state of mind that is honest by the standards of ordinary, decent people”. The critical need to lead positive evidence in circumstances of the prior knowledge attributed to Zip Companies was also highlighted by the Court: in this case, Zip Companies used ‘ZIP’ marks for credit products later in time than Firstmac’s registered mark ‘ZIP’ in class 36 for loan products. Zip Companies failed to establish honesty in the face of circumstances where Zip Companies’ representative became aware of Firstmac’s registered mark as it was cited as an impediment to registration following an application by Zip Companies to register the ZIP marks, and thereafter Zip Companies launched products under the ZIP marks. It was also held that: “[70]… the Zip Companies did not lead evidence sufficient for a finding that, despite knowing of a material impediment to the legitimate use of the Zip Companies' marks, in November 2013 (or subsequently for later potential infringements) Mr Diamond nevertheless considered that consumers would experience no confusion between the Zip Companies' marks and the Firstmac Mark which might enure to the benefit of the Zip Companies. Nor did the Zip Companies lead evidence sufficient for a finding that although Mr Diamond had not turned his mind to these matters, he had not been reckless in his failure to do so. These gaps in the evidentiary record and findings precluded a conclusion that the Zip Companies had proved their honesty.”. We can also take away from the case that it is not fatal to a defence of honest concurrent use that the alleged infringer knew of the existence or registration of the competitor’s mark on or before the alleged infringement/s occurred. A link to the case is here: https://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases-and-judgments/judgments/judgments-1998-current/zip-co-limited-v-firstmac-limited
View of the hands of a lawyer signing some papers and a wooden gavel on a desk.
24 May 2026
Need solicitors in Cairns for property law? O'Reilly Stevens offers local expertise in contracts, leasing & disputes. Call today for trusted legal guidance.
A partial view of three lawyers discussing documents with a gavel on a table.
25 March 2026
For O’Reilly Stevens Lawyers, call 07 4031 7133 today for solicitors in Cairns, QLD. Provides guidance in property, family, commercial & court proceedings.
Judge with gavel & scales
1 July 2025
Unsure when to call a criminal lawyer in Cairns? Learn the key signs, protect your rights early, and get the legal support you need when it matters most.
Legal documents signed
21 May 2025
Learn how criminal solicitors in Mareeba, QLD can guide you through charges, court, and defence strategies. Call O’Reilly Stevens Lawyers at (07) 4031 7133.
Criminal law book and gavel
20 May 2025
Discover the expertise of a criminal defence lawyer in Mareeba, QLD. Contact us today for top-notch legal support.
by O'Reilly Stevens Lawyers 15 July 2024
Learn about directors' personal liability for trademark infringement and how it affects your business. O'Reilly Stevens provides expert legal advice on intellectual property.
by O'Reilly Stevens Lawyers 30 April 2024
The Australian Pacific Engagement Visa Subclass 192 ballot opens on 3 June 2024. Learn about eligibility, application processes, and more at O'Reilly Stevens.
Show More