Skip to main content
FWCFair Work Commission · 30 December 2025

the Applicant v Clearworld Holdings Pty Ltd

Citation: [2026] FWC 2467

At a glance

Employees affected
1

What happened

the Applicant initiated proceedings against Clearworld Holdings Pty Ltd, alleging unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act. She claims she was dismissed after starting employment on August 18, 2025. the Respondent argues the Applicant was an independent contractor and therefore not an employee who could be dismissed. Evidence suggests the Applicant attended work on August 18th, received reimbursement for a coffee, and later worked as a Business Development Manager from August 25th before the relationship purportedly transitioned to an independent contractor arrangement. the Respondent denies the Applicant attended work on August 18th.

What was decided

The Fair Work Commission determined that a relationship of employment existed between the Applicant and Clearworld Holdings Pty Ltd commencing on August 18, 2025. the Commissioner dismissed the respondent’s jurisdictional objection arguing the Applicant was an independent contractor. The Commission found evidence supporting her initial employment and rejected the respondent's claims about her attendance and subsequent contracting agreement. While acknowledging a possible independent contractor arrangement later, the Commission did not fully accept the circumstances surrounding its formation.

What it means for employers

Employers should carefully document all aspects of employee onboarding, including attendance records and agreements. Any shift from employment to contract work must be clearly communicated, agreed upon, and documented with both parties’ informed consent. Ensure consistent record-keeping and avoid conflicting statements regarding an employee's status.

What it means for employees

Employees should keep detailed records of their interactions with employers, including communications about working arrangements and any changes in employment terms. If you believe your employer is misclassifying you as a contractor, seek legal advice to understand your rights and options.

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.

unfair-dismissalgeneral-protectionsmisclassificationenterprise-agreement

Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:

https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2026fwc2467.pdf

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.

Individual case summaries on this site are free. The full FWC and Federal Court library behind every advisor answer is on Pro.

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.

Just need this week sorted? A 7-Day Pass is 50 questions over 7 days, no account. Get a 7-Day Pass — $14.99

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

All cases