High Court Decides on Workpac v Rossato
January 5, 2026
Author name
On 4 August 2021, the High Court unanimously overturned the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia’s decision in Workpac Pty Ltd v Rossato [2020] FCAFC 84 and the precedent set in the Full Federal Court judgment of Skene v WorkPac Pty Ltd (2018) 264 FCR 536, being cases which dealt with the nature of casual employment.
In WorkPac v Rossato & Ors
[2021] HCA 23 (‘WorkPac v Rossato’), the High Court found that Mr Rossato was a casual employee for the purposes of WorkPac’s Enterprise Agreement and the Fair Work Act 2009
(Cth), thus excluding Mr Rossato from entitlements, such as paid annual leave, that apply to permanent employees.
To read more about the Federal Court decision, you can view our article here.
Background
Mr Rossato was employed by WorkPac, a labour hire company, on a series of separate casual employment contracts between 2014 and 2018 and was recognised (and paid) as a casual employee under WorkPac’s 2012 Mining (Coal) Industry Enterprise Agreement.
After his last engagement with WorkPac had ended, Mr Rossato claimed he was a permanent employee rather than a casual and was therefore entitled to receive annual leave and personal leave entitlements. In particular, Mr Rossato claimed:
- He had regular and ongoing employment, due to receiving a set roster a year in advance in addition to regular shift patterns;
- His shift hours were standard and rarely deviated from his roster; and
- WorkPac expected Mr Rossato would attend every shift.
Overall, the core issues before the High Court were whether Mr Rossato had a ‘firm advanced commitment’ that was an enforceable term of his contract, and whether the express terms of Mr Rossato’s written contracts of employment had primacy.
High Court Decision
The majority of the High Court rejected the notion that the employment relationship between the parties was to be established by analysing ‘the real substance, practical reality and true nature of that relationship’. In considering whether Mr Rossato had any ‘firm advance commitment as to the duration of his employment’ the Court identified that the appropriate method to assess this question was to look to the employee’s several written employment contracts.
In particular, the Court noted the express terms of Mr Rossato’s contracts, including:
- Mr Rossato was engaged on several separate contracts for specified periods of time;
- Mr Rossato could accept or reject any offer of work;
- the contract could be terminated on one hour’s notice;
- Mr Rossato did receive a casual loading; and
- the specification of daily working hours could be varied.
Additionally, the High Court gave limited weight to two other factors which the Full Court of the Federal Court had deemed relevant:
- WorkPac’s ability to terminate or vary Mr Rossato’s shifts and roster on one hour’s notice; and
- Mr Rossato’s work obligations being consistent and organised well in advance in accordance with WorkPac’s rosters.
The Court ultimately concluded that the express contractual terms agreed between Mr Rossato and WorkPac did not evidence a ‘firm advance commitment’ which Mr Rossato was able to enforce. Whilst the Court said that Mr Rossato may have had a reasonable expectation of continuing employment, this did not amount to an advance firm commitment to ongoing employment and was not an enforceable term of his contracts.
Key Takeaways
The High Court’s decision reinforces the need for employers to have carefully constructed and drafted employment contracts. The Court gave primacy to the express terms of Mr Rossato’s written contracts and dispelled notions of “expectations” as enforceable contractual terms.
We recommend that employers review their employment contracts and seek advice in relation to the engagement of casual employees in particular.
To view the full decision please click here.
If you need assistance with your employment contracts, or seek further information in relation to your legal rights and responsibilities, please contact us on (08) 9321 5451 or by email at phil@bailiwicklegal.com.au.
The above information is a summary and overview of the matters discussed. This publication does not constitute legal advice and you should seek legal or other professional advice before acting or relying on this information.
Bailiwick Legal Advises on Landmark Acquisition of Rawlinna Station by Consolidated Pastoral Company
Bailiwick Legal is proud to have acted for Consolidated Pastoral Company (CPC) in its successful acquisition of Rawlinna Station , Australia’s largest sheep station, located on the remote Nullarbor Plain in Western Australia. Spanning over 1 million hectares and running approximately 30,000 sheep , Rawlinna is an iconic pastoral asset with a rich legacy, having been held by the MacLachlan family’s Jumbuck Pastoral Company since its establishment in 1962. The sale marks the first change of ownership in over six decades and was finalised following formal approval from the Western Australian Government for the transfer of the pastoral leases. This transaction involved navigating: The transfer of three separate pastoral leases Coordination across multiple vendor entities Consideration of livestock and operating assets Fulfilment of regulatory and compliance requirements, including WA lease approval processes Bailiwick Legal is a boutique agricultural and regional law firm , proudly based in Perth and Bridgetown, Western Australia. Our role in this acquisition demonstrates that deep sector knowledge, local insight, and personalised legal support are crucial for agribusiness clients managing complex, high-value transactions. Our team, led by our regionally-based solicitor, Matilda Lloyd, provided end-to-end legal and strategic support, including: Due diligence on land tenure and operating assets Contract negotiation and preparation Advice on regulatory approvals and compliance Strategic coordination with CPC’s internal and external stakeholders to ensure a smooth and timely settlement We are honoured to have supported CPC in this milestone acquisition and look forward to watching Rawlinna’s next chapter unfolds. At Bailiwick Legal, we believe that regional expertise, deep industry knowledge, and relationship-based service remain essential to agribusiness success, no matter the scale. Congratulations to all parties involved, including the MacLachlan family, whose stewardship of Rawlinna leaves a lasting legacy in Australian agriculture. – The Bailiwick Legal Team Working alongside agribusinesses to grow, transition, and thrive . For assistance with all of your agribusiness needs, contact Bailiwick Legal on 08 9321 5451 or email office@bailiwicklegal.com.au By Matilda Lloyd (Associate) For further information about our legal services, please visit our website: https://www.bailiwicklegal.com.au The above information is a summary and overview of the matters discussed. This publication does not constitute legal advice and you should seek legal or other professional advice before acting or relying on any of the content.
Our June 2024 newsletter is now available. Have a read to find out what we have been up to in the first half of the year!
The International Sustainability and Carbon Certification (ISCC) System has come to the attention of many Western Australian farmers recently, as the scheme has changed one of its policies regarding aerial spraying. What is the ISCC? The ISCC is one of the world’s largest voluntary sustainability certification schemes enabling participants to demonstrate they are producing materials in a sustainable way that meets or exceeds community expectations. In Australia it is widely used in the canola industry, enabling Australian canola growers to access the European biofuel market. CBH Marketing and Trading holds certification for the ISCC EU and ISCC PLUS programs, that cover canola, barley, oats, wheat and lupin, allowing WA growers to participate in both programs. Participating in the ISCC program can result in a premium on grain, however participants are subject to more stringent measures to satisfy sustainability accreditation requirements. Recent decision on aerial spraying ISCC Principle 2.6.2 prevents aerial spraying from taking place within 500 metres of a body of water. CBH has successfully lobbied for an exemption to this Principle, for farm dams and salt lakes of low ecological value. As part of its lobbying, CBH provided expert reports to the ISCC on the hydrology and ecology of WA farm systems. For farmers who are signed up to the ISCC program, this removes an obstacle during the season for weed management. The Principle does still require a 500 metre buffer for other bodies of water, including freshwater lakes, rivers, ponds or creeks. However, for those who farm yabbies and marron, this change may not be welcome. Marron and yabby farmers have noticed impacts on their populations where aerial spraying has taken place close to their properties, and aerial spraying can unintentionally damage natural vegetation, including young and old growth trees. For growers, it’s always prudent to follow best practice guidelines for aerial spraying to avoid spray drift – including monitoring weather conditions and the effect of water added to the chemical. For some farmers, this decision may prompt an examination of whether signing up to the ISCC program might be best for their business. In this circumstance, it is important to weigh up the potential benefits of the program compared to the sustainability accreditation requirements. For others, this decision is a timely reminder to stay up to date with best practice guidelines when it comes to spraying, particularly during the seeding season. For assistance with all of your agribusiness needs, contact Bailiwick Legal on 08 9321 5451 or email office@bailiwicklegal.com.au By Ciara Nalty (Solicitor) For further information about our legal services, please visit our website: https://www.bailiwicklegal.com.au The above information is a summary and overview of the matters discussed. This publication does not constitute legal advice and you should seek legal or other professional advice before acting or relying on any of the content.
