the Applicant v Domino’s Pizza Enterprises Limited (No 4)
What happened
This case, Gall v Domino’s Pizza Enterprises Limited (No 4), concerns a class action lawsuit brought before the Federal Court of Australia. The Applicant, Mr Gall, and other employees of Domino’s franchisees alleged that Domino’s Pizza Enterprises Limited engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law. They claimed this conduct caused them loss and damage, specifically unpaid award entitlements. The case also examined whether a clause in a certified agreement could be inconsistent with the Fair Work Act 2009.
What was decided
The Federal Court considered several key issues relating to misleading or deceptive conduct, including whether Domino’s representations were conveyed, if they were facts or opinions, and whether there were reasonable grounds for those opinions. The court also addressed whether the alleged conduct occurred ‘in trade or commerce’ and whether it could be deemed misleading even if not apparently so at the time. The Court considered the requirement for a counterfactual under s 236 of the Australian Consumer Law and whether unpaid award entitlements are recoverable under that section. It also examined the consistency of a clause in a certified agreement with the Fair Work Act.
What it means for employers
Employers, particularly those operating franchise systems, should carefully review their communications to franchisees and ensure they are accurate and not misleading. This case highlights the potential for franchisors to be held liable for the actions impacting employees of their franchisees. Employers need to understand how representations made might impact others and consider whether those representations can be reasonably supported.
What it means for employees
Employees working within franchise systems should be aware of their rights and protections under consumer law. This case demonstrates a potential avenue for seeking redress if they have suffered loss or damage due to misleading conduct by a franchisor. Employees may be able to join class actions to pursue claims collectively.
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.
Send your details to Liquid Employment Lawyers
Liquid Employment Lawyers is a paid legal service and our referral partner, not free Fair Work advice. FairWork Mate may receive a referral fee from Liquid Legal. Tell them what has happened and a member of their team will call you back. For free general guidance, use our tools or call the Fair Work Ombudsman on 13 13 94.
Prefer to read first? About Liquid Employment Lawyers · Not sure if you need a lawyer? Read the legal help guides
Want 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.
FairWork Mate AI
This is one decision. Pro reads all of them.
Free case pages cite the top 250 decisions. Pro opens the full Fair Work Commission and Federal Court library, cross-references your own situation against it, and cites the decision behind every answer — plus document upload, so it can read your letter or contract line by line. 150 questions a month, cancel anytime.
Renews monthly at A$29.99 until you cancel. By continuing you agree to our Terms.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.