Background
Mr Andrew Vize was initially engaged by Whistle Funds Management Company Pty Ltd under a Consultancy Agreement commencing in March 2012. In July 2017, he was appointed to the role of Fund Manager, and in April 2021, he was appointed as Managing Director and CEO. Throughout his approximately 13-year engagement, Vize performed services including financial modelling, cash flow management, and investor reporting. Whistle Funds terminated his engagement on 5 March 2025. The central dispute was whether Vize remained an independent contractor throughout, or whether he became an employee when his role changed to Fund Manager and/or Managing Director.
Vize claimed he was owed unpaid annual leave, long service leave, and superannuation contributions under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and the Long Service Leave Act 1955 (NSW). He also alleged he was wrongfully dismissed in retaliation for exercising workplace rights. Whistle Funds argued the original Consultancy Agreement continued to govern the relationship regardless of his changing role, and that only his remuneration varied over time.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Shariff held that Mr Vize transitioned from independent contractor to employee status from 1 July 2017 when appointed as Fund Manager. The Court found that the appointment to the Fund Manager role constituted a material change in the nature and scope of the engagement such that the original Consultancy Agreement was superseded by an employment contract. This status continued through his subsequent appointment as Managing Director in April 2021 and until his termination on 5 March 2025.
On the substantive claims, the Court declared that Whistle Funds contravened the Fair Work Act by failing to pay accrued annual leave upon termination and by failing to make mandatory superannuation contributions from 1 January 2024. Whistle Funds also contravened the Long Service Leave Act 1955 (NSW) by failing to pay accrued long service leave. Most significantly, the Court found that Whistle Funds contravened the Fair Work Act by dismissing Vize because he exercised a workplace right—specifically, his right to lodge a complaint about discrimination or unlawful conduct. The Court rejected Whistle Funds’ estoppel defence. However, the Court dismissed all claims against the second respondent (William Silverman), finding he was not involved in the contraventions.
Key Takeaways
- A change in role and responsibilities can supersede a pre-existing consultancy arrangement and create an employment relationship, even without a formal written employment contract.
- Employers cannot avoid superannuation and leave entitlements by characterising a long-standing engagement as perpetual consultancy when the practical arrangements indicate an employment relationship.
- Dismissal in retaliation for a worker exercising workplace rights (including complaining about unlawful conduct) violates the Fair Work Act, even where the broader employment status was disputed.
- Public policy prevents reliance on estoppel arguments to deprive workers of statutory employment protections and entitlements.
Why It Matters
This decision provides important guidance on the boundary between independent contracting and employment in Australia, particularly in professional and managerial contexts. It establishes that courts will examine the practical substance of an engagement rather than formal labels, and that material changes in role and responsibility can transform a contractual relationship. The judgment reinforces that statutory employment protections—including superannuation, leave entitlements, and protection from dismissal for exercising workplace rights—cannot be contracted away or waived, even through long-standing arrangements characterised as consultancy.
For employers and professional service providers, the decision underscores the importance of documenting changes to engagement terms when roles evolve substantially, and confirms that the obligation to provide statutory entitlements arises once the factual circumstances indicate an employment relationship exists, regardless of how the parties initially characterised the arrangement.
✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.