United Motor Search Pty Ltd v Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd
Citation: [2013] FCA 1104
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant conducted a transport business as an owner-driver through United Motor Search Pty Ltd, providing concrete delivery services to the Respondent using 6.0m³ and 7.0m³ trucks. The Respondent required drivers to upgrade to larger capacity trucks to maintain their contracts. the Applicant purchased a 7.0m³ truck expecting his contract would continue until September 2020 based on promises from her partner. The Respondent subsequently refused to approve the upgraded truck for work, withheld loads, and terminated the contract effective 30 September 2013.
What was decided
The Federal Court granted an interlocutory injunction requiring the Respondent to provide casual cartage work to the Applicant using the upgraded 7.0m³ truck until trial, finding a serious question to be tried concerning adverse action under the Fair Work Act. The Court accepted that evidence pointed to contraventions of s.342(1) of the Fair Work Act, which prohibits principals from terminating independent contractor agreements, injuring contractors’ terms and conditions, or refusing to use their services without prohibited reasons. The injunction remained in force pending full determination of the substantive claims.
What it means for employers
Principals engaging independent contractors must not alter contractual arrangements or refuse to use contractor services for reasons prohibited by the Fair Work Act. Refusing to approve equipment upgrades after inducing contractors to invest in new assets may constitute unlawful adverse action. The Act extends protection to contractors where discrimination or prohibited industrial participation are involved. Careful documentation of contractual commitments and reasons for any contract changes is essential.
What it means for employees
Independent contractors have access to adverse action remedies under the Fair Work Act. If a principal refuses to provide work or terminate a contract after inducing equipment purchases and promising contract extensions, a court may grant urgent interlocutory relief to preserve work during proceedings. Contractors who believe they've been treated less favourably because of industrial activity or exercising workplace rights can seek court intervention.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2013/2013fca1104Want more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →