the Applicant v Built MG Pty Ltd
Citation: [2026] FWC 2575
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant made a claim under section 365 of the Fair Work Act, alleging he was unfairly dismissed from Built MG Pty Ltd (Built). Built argued that the Applicant wasn't an employee but an independent contractor, based on an 'Independent Contractor Agreement' signed in April 2025. The agreement stipulated payments to a family trust and outlined responsibilities like working 45 hours weekly. Initially, Built had offered the Applicant employment with wages paid into the trust account, which led to the contractor arrangement. Correspondence showed negotiations around this change. Evidence included a laptop provided by Built and payment of software licenses.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found that despite being classified as an independent contractor in a written agreement, the Applicant was actually an employee of Built MG Pty Ltd. the Commissioner dismissed Built's jurisdictional objection. The decision considered the 'totality of the relationship', including the contract terms and how they were practically applied. Factors like weekly wage payments, paid leave, and Built’s control over the Applicant’s work supported this finding. The Commission now has jurisdiction to deal with the general protections claim.
What it means for employers
Employers should be cautious about reclassifying employees as independent contractors simply to achieve a desired payment structure. A written contract alone isn't enough; the substance and practical reality of the working relationship are crucial. Failing to properly assess employment status can lead to jurisdictional challenges and potential breaches of workplace laws.
What it means for employees
Employees should be aware that being labelled an independent contractor doesn’t necessarily mean they aren't employees. If your work is closely controlled, you receive regular pay, and lack autonomy, it's important to assess whether the classification accurately reflects your employment status.
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.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2026fwc2575.pdfWant 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 →