Bradshaw v BSA Limited (No 2)
Citation: [2022] FCA 1440
What happened
Paul Bradshaw and Scott Uren, as representatives of a class of telecommunications technicians, brought a representative proceeding against BSA Limited. The applicants and group members were telecommunications technicians who installed and maintained telecommunications services. They claim that since 2003 they and group members provided their services to BSA as employees but were not paid various employee entitlements including annual leave, long service leave, penalty rates, superannuation contributions, and other benefits. BSA is a contracting company in the telecommunications industry providing technical services to telecommunications providers.
What was decided
The applicants, respondent, and litigation funder agreed to settle the proceeding. The court approved a $20 million settlement. The court also approved a settlement distribution scheme with amendments. The court reduced the litigation funder's commission from that originally proposed, disallowed certain adverse costs insurance expenses, and partially disallowed pre-retainer legal costs to ensure fair distribution to group members. Non-publication orders were made for sensitive financial and personal information.
What it means for employers
Misclassification of workers as independent contractors rather than employees can result in significant liability for unpaid entitlements. Representative proceedings can expose employers to substantial class-based compensation claims affecting numerous workers over many years.
What it means for employees
Class action proceedings can recover unpaid entitlements for multiple workers affected by the same misclassification. Settlements may distribute compensation after deductions for legal costs and funding commissions, but courts ensure the bulk reaches group members.
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/2022/2022fca1440Want 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 →