Dental Corporation Pty Ltd v the Respondent
Citation: [2020] FCAFC 118
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant, a dentist, sold his dental practice to Dental Corporation Pty Ltd on 15 November 2007 but continued to provide dentistry services at the practice. The parties entered into a Services Agreement governing his work. Under the agreement, the Applicant was required to provide dentistry services, maintain professional standards, develop professionally, and obtain professional indemnity insurance. He received remuneration calculated as a percentage of revenue he personally generated plus performance bonuses. Dental Corporation provided administrative services, equipment, and paid for supporting staff.
What was decided
The trial judge found the Applicant was not an employee for annual leave or long service leave purposes. The Full Court upheld this finding on appeal, examining the totality of the relationship. The court found that despite some features suggesting employment (provision of administrative support, Dental Corporation's ownership of intellectual property in records), the revenue-based remuneration structure, lack of direction on working hours, and incentive-based compensation indicated an independent contractor relationship. However, the court agreed the Applicant fell within the extended definition of 'employee' under the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 as his services were principally for labour.
What it means for employers
Classification of workers hinges on the totality of the relationship, not single factors. Revenue-based compensation structures alone do not determine contractor status if other features of employment remain. Superannuation obligations may apply even if other employment entitlements do not.
What it means for employees
Professionals providing ongoing services on a revenue-share basis may be classified as contractors for some purposes but employees for superannuation purposes. The fairness of the arrangement and actual degree of control matter more than formal labels.
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/full/2020/2020fcafc0118Want 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 →