Byline: James Anglicas

Case note: Chiodo v Silk Contract Logistics [2023] FCA 1047

In a recent decision of Chiodo v Silk Contract Logistics [2023] FCA 1047, the Federal Court dismissed a truck driver’s claim that he was an employee and therefore entitled to payment for annual leave and long service leave, as well as superannuation. The Court found that the truck driver was a contractor and not entitled to the benefits usually afforded to an employee.

The Court’s decision re-emphasises the importance that is placed in defining the contractual relationship between parties when assessing whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor.

During settlement discussions, it is commonplace for offers and counteroffers to be made between rival parties. While settlement offers are usually reduced to writing in a letter or formal Offer of Compromise, they are often communicated verbally or via email. These seemingly ‘less formal’ modes of communication can create a situation where one party asserts that a legally enforceable settlement agreement has been made, while the other says it has not.

Case note: Airmaster Corporation Pty Ltd v Mohtadi [2022] VSC 822

The Federal Court’s recent landmark decision in ASIC v RI Advice Group Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 496¹ raises the bar for companies and directors on the importance of adequate cybersecurity protection after it imposed costly remedial orders on a financial services provider for failing to maintain adequate cybersecurity risk management systems.

In a recent decision¹, the Supreme Court of Victoria has found that Viterra² and its parent company Glencore³ engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct during their $420 million sale of a malting business, Joe White Maltings Pty Ltd (Joe White), to Cargill⁴.

The Australian Tax Office (ATO) is ramping up its collection of overdue tax payments, including by serving Director Penalty Notices (DPNs) which were largely held in abeyance during the COVID-19 pandemic.