ATO’s 80/20 Rule And Other Issues To Consider When Engaging Contractors

ATO’s 80/20 Rule And Other Issues To Consider When Engaging Contractors

Home » Building & Construction

ATO’s 80/20 Rule And Other Issues To Consider When Engaging Contractors

Author: Robert Lamb

}

4 min read

26 Feb 2024

Share:

  • r
    Key Takeaways
  • Make sure you understand the difference between an employee and contractor as defined in the 80/20 Rule used by the ATO.
  • Ensure there is a written agreement that outlines and defines the relationship whether it be employee or contractor.
  • If you get it wrong there may be large financial consequences.

Stay Up-To-Date

Subscribe to receive updates specific to your preferences

It is common for mining and resources businesses to engage workers as contractors. While on the surface it appears straightforward, the ATO’s 80/20 rule and a raft of other issues can muddy the waters as to whether a worker is indeed a contractor or if they’re actually an employee.

If they are the latter, but engaged as the former, you as the business owner may find yourself responsible for unpaid tax, superannuation, lost wages and other entitlements earned over the course of their tenure. In this article we examine the differences, and what needs to be considered when engaging workers as contractors.

As is often the case with employment law, it’s complicated.

Each case turns on its own facts and the legal position as to whether a worker is a contractor or an employee may not actually be known until a Court, Tribunal or the Australian Taxation Office reports their finding.

With regard to the aforementioned 80/20 rule, simply put if 80% or more of a worker’s personal service income is generated from a single client then for taxation purposes, that worker is at least in the ATO’s eyes an employee. Even if they consider themselves a contractor, they (and therefore you as the deemed employer)  are required to pay tax as if they were an employee.

On occasions when contractors have been wrongly designated and legally found to be employees, and they haven’t paid their tax or super, as their employer rather than their client, in addition to having paid their invoices, you will most likely be liable for much more.

This could include your having to pay substantial unpaid tax, superannuation, reimbursement of lost wages and to add insult to injury, any Fair Work or ATO penalties that may apply.

Of equal concern, you could also be liable for damages if the contractor-deemed-employee injures themselves at work.

Whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists is a question of fact to be derived from the circumstances of each case.  However, matters including the degree to which the worker is integrated into and treated as part of the employer’s enterprise, may also have relevance in any legal action.

The totality of the relationship as prescribed by the written agreement between the parties must also be considered. This relates to the ultimate authority and control over the worker, rather than the actual work exercise.

There are both advantages and disadvantages relating to employee and contractor scenarios, and these should be worked through with your Employment and Industrial Relations legal advisor in context of the business and worker’s circumstances.

On some occasions, it is to everyone’s advantage for the worker to be engaged under a contract, rather than as an employee.

For example a specialist surveyor or geologist may wish to remain an independent contractor so they can work for other businesses in the mining and resources industries.

Alternatively, the worker may have accountancy advice that indicates that working under a contract is lawfully to their advantage.

An agreement between the parties is also of paramount importance. Importantly, the agreement needs to be in writing.

Failing to have a written agreement that clearly outlines the obligations and responsibilities of each party can have far reaching consequences for both a business owner defending their case and a contractor to be paid their entitlement.

Matters including dealing with out-of-scope expenses, schedule of payment for services rendered, confidentiality and any post agreement actions should all be outlined in a contractor’s agreement.

Risk allocation and insurances must be clearly articulated in any agreement with both parties expected to have appropriate insurances with adequate cover amounts.

Business owners should note, most business public liability insurance policies do not cover claims caused by contractors.

If a contractor caused a claim, and they are without insurance cover, the affected party will look for someone to sue and you as the business owner could find yourself liable for millions of dollars in damages.

Next steps

Employment law is complex and it seems it’s constantly changing. May I recommend business owners regularly review and update your employment policies and procedures, especially for engaging contractors.  As explained here, it’s imperative to correctly and legally designate workers, as a contractor or if they are in fact an employee.

For advice about industrial relations and employment law contact Robert Lamb on 07 3220 1144  or email robert@hillhouse.com.au.

Resources Unearthed is a solutions hub that provides integrated financial, legal, property, accounting and business advisory services for executives, professionals and business owners in the mining and resources sectors.

This article was originally published by Resources Unearthed here.

Set-off Under Section 553C Not Available To Defend An unfair Preference Claim

Set-off Under Section 553C Not Available To Defend An unfair Preference Claim

Home » Building & Construction

Set-off Under Section 553C Not Available To Defend An unfair Preference Claim

Author: John Davies

}

3 min read

14 Mar 2023

Share:

  • r
    Key Takeaways
  • An unfair preference claim by a liquidator of a company against a creditor and a debt owed by the company to a creditor do not possess mutuality of persons or interests necessary for set off under s 553C.
  • The requirement under s 553C that there be mutual dealings is also not met as an unfair preference claim arises after the winding up of the company commences whereas the debts owed by the Company to the creditor arose before the winding up commenced.
  • This case is also an important reminder that when a liquidator sues to recover an unfair preference claim they do so as an officer of the Court and not as agent of the company.

Stay Up-To-Date

Subscribe to receive updates specific to your preferences

A recent case decided by the High Court of Australia, Metal Manufactures Pty Ltd v Gavin Morton As Liquidator Of MJ Woodman Electrical Contractors Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) & Anor [2023] HCA 1 (Metal Manufactures v Morton) has clarified that debts owed by a company in liquidation to a creditor cannot be set-off under s 553C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) against an unfair preference claim brought against the creditor by the liquidator of the company.

It is useful to start with a timeline of this case’s factual circumstances.

  1. Metal Manufactures Pty Ltd (Metal Manufactures) was paid a total of $190,000 by MJ Woodman Electrical Contractors Pty Ltd (MJ Woodman) in the six month period before MJ Woodman was wound up.
  2. MJ Woodman itself owed $194,727.23 to Metal Manufactures.
  3. MJ Woodman was wound up.
  4. The liquidators of MJ Woodman sought to recover the $190,000 under section 588FF(1)(a) of the Act as an unfair preference .

The question before the High Court was whether Metal Manufactures was entitled under section 553C of the Act to set off the amount owed to them by MJ Woodman against the unfair preference claim by the liquidators. This question was answered in the negative for two reasons. Firstly, that the unfair preference claim did not arise while MJ Woodman was solvent and therefore does not meet the temporal requirement of s 553C. Secondly, that the debts owed were not mutual dealings.

Critically, s 553C has a temporal element and can only assist a creditor where the mutual dealings arose prior to the winding up of the company. While the payments to Metal Manufactures was made prior to the winding up, the unfair preference claim itself only arose after MJ Woodman was wound up and therefore the right to set off could not arise.

Further, the High Court held that the debts were not mutual dealings as there was no mutuality of persons or interests, which is to say that the debts in this case were owed to different persons and were in relation to different equitable or beneficial interests.

The unfair preferences claim by the liquidator was not a claim by or on behalf of MJ Woodman, but by the liquidator in their capacity as an officer of the court. The mutuality of persons criteria was therefore not met as that debt was between a different pair of persons than the debt owing by MJ Woodman to Metal Manufactures.

The mutuality of interests criteria was not met, as the interest of Metal Manufactures in being paid by MJ Woodman for a trading transaction was not the same as the liquidator making use of their right of recovery to allow those funds to be distributed to creditors of MJ Woodman.

It remains to be seen how this case will impact the right to set-off debts owed by the company to a creditor against other types of voidable transaction claims and also insolvent trading claims. The High Court did not squarely address the point and we await further commentary and case law.

For advice regarding debt recovery or other corporate and commercial legal questions, please contact John by email or 07 3220 1144.

Areas of Expertise

Signing contracts only as a company director can still expose you to personal liability under a personal guarantee

Signing contracts only as a company director can still expose you to personal liability under a personal guarantee

Home » Building & Construction

Signing contracts only as a company director can still expose you to personal liability under a personal guarantee

Author: John Davies

}

5 min read

21 Feb 2023

Share:

  • r
    Key Takeaways
  • Directors must be careful in ensuring that they understand how the actions they take in their capacity as directors can affect or create personal obligations.
  • This case is a reminder that an intention to be bound by the terms of a contract is based on the construction of the contract and the relevant circumstances.
  • Before signing a contract, a director should review it carefully to see whether it contains a personal guarantee clause, even if the director is not a party to the contract or the contract does not contain a separate signing clause for the director in their personal capacity.

Stay Up-To-Date

Subscribe to receive updates specific to your preferences

In a recent decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal in Pugwall Pty Ltd v Arthur McKenzie Investments Pty Ltd and Arthur Charles McKenzie [2022] VSCA 272, a director was found to have provided a personal guarantee in respect of a joint venture agreement, despite not being named as a party to the agreement and signing the agreement as a company director and not in a personal capacity. 

This case covered a dispute between Pugwall Pty Ltd (Pugwall), its director Martin Clark (Clark), Arthur McKenzie Investments Pty Ltd (AMI) and its director Arthur McKenzie (McKenzie).

Pugwall and AMI were commercial building companies who were parties to a joint venture agreement (JV Agreement) for the constructions of nineteen residential units. 

The JV Agreement included a substantive guarantee clause pursuant to which Clark guaranteed the obligations of Pugwall and McKenzie guaranteed the obligations of AMI. 

The joint venture failed and incurred losses. It was common ground that AMI was liable for 50% of those losses. Pugwall also sought to recover AMI’s share of the loss from McKenzie under the personal guarantee clause in the JV Agreement. 

At first instance the trial judge ordered that AMI was to pay Pugway just under $1.35 million and held that McKenzie was not personally liable as he did not intend to provide a personal guarantee under the JV Agreement. 

On appeal the only issue to be decided by the Court of Appeal was whether McKenzie intended to be bound by the personal guarantee contained within the JV Agreement. The Court decided that McKenzie intended to be bound by the guarantee. 

Whether McKenzie was a party to the JV Agreement

McKenzie argued that he could not be a guarantor under the JV Agreement as he was not a named party to the JV Agreement. The front page of the JV Agreement provided that the JV Agreement was ‘Between’ the ‘Parties’: Pugwall, AMI and Ponza, a list that did not include McKenzie.[1] 

The Court when considering whether McKenzie was a party to the JV Agreement paid careful attention to several often overlooked operational clauses. 

The acknowledgement of legal advice clause used the wording “each Joint Venturer or party”, implying that a person other than a Joint Venturer (Joint Venturers was defined to only include AMI and Pugwall) could be a party to the JV Agreement. 

The notice clause of the JV Agreement set out the procedure for sending notices to the parties, this clause included both McKenzie’s and AMI’s addresses, which were the same. The Court noted that it would be redundant to list McKenzie and AMI’s address separately unless McKenzie was a party to the contract. 

The Guarantee clause read together with clause 1 (definitions) clearly provided that McKenzie was to guarantee AMI’s obligations.

 For these and other reasons the Court held that McKenzie was a party to the JV Agreement. 

The importance of considering the construction of the JV Agreement

Whether a person intends to be bound by a contract is an objective question based on the construction of the document and all surrounding relevant circumstances. 

As discussed above, the Court concluded that McKenzie was a party to the JV Agreement and the contract clearly specified McKenzie was to provide a guarantee for AMI. 

The Court said that “McKenzie’s signature suggests that he read and approved these terms, or was ‘willing to take the chance of being bound by them’.”[2]

With regard to the context of the contract, the court said that “[a]lthough the Joint Venturers were corporate entities, it was the two men who effectively entered into a business venture together (given they controlled and owned both corporate entities). It would be consistent with this commercial context that each single director could look to the other to account for any losses of the venture.”[3]

The Court ultimately held that McKenzie had indeed intended to be personally bound by the guarantee. 

Section 126 of the Instruments Act 1958 (Vic) 

Section 126 of the Instruments Act 1958 (Vic) provides that, in Victoria, guarantees must be in writing and signed by the person to be charged (or by a person lawfully authorised in writing to sign on behalf of the person to be charged). 

In Queensland, s 56 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) is of similar effect. 

The Court held that the capacity in which a person signs an agreement is not relevant to the application of s 126.

Takeaways

  • Whether a party intends to be bound by a contract is based on the construction of the contract and the relevant circumstances.
  • Always ensure that any contracts that you sign are clear and carefully drafted to minimise the chance of any disputes. The safest course of action will generally be to have your contracts reviewed by a reputable lawyer.
  • Directors must be careful in ensuring that they understand how the actions they take in their capacity as directors can affect or create personal obligations.
  • Boilerplate and procedural clauses, including notice clauses should be drafted with care as they can significantly impact how the contract will be interpreted. 

For advice regarding commercial contracts or other corporate and commercial legal questions, please contact John by email or 07 3220 1144.

 

[1] Ponza was a new company incorporated to act as a manager of the joint venture.

[2] Pugwall Pty Ltd v Arthur McKenzie Investments Pty Ltd and Arthur Charles McKenzie [2022] VSCA 272 at [55]

[3] Ibid [58]

Areas of Expertise

Residential Tenancy Law Reform in Queensland – what landlords and tenants need to know

Residential Tenancy Law Reform in Queensland – what landlords and tenants need to know

Home » Building & Construction

Residential Tenancy Law Reform in Queensland – what landlords and tenants need to know

}

4 min read

9 Nov 2022

Share:

  • r
    Key Takeaways
  • On 1 October 2022, numerous changes to Queensland residential tenancy laws commenced under the Housing Legislation Amendment Act 2021.
  • The changes were introduced to better regulate leased properties across the State and increase obligations of landlords in certain respects.
  • If you own a residential investment property that is tenanted, it is important you are aware of these changes and the further changes coming into effect next year.

Stay Up-To-Date

Subscribe to receive updates specific to your preferences

On 1 October 2022, numerous changes to Queensland residential tenancy laws commenced under the Housing Legislation Amendment Act 2021 (amending the law under the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008). These changes were introduced to better regulate leased residential properties across the State and increase obligations of landlords in certain respects. They have been described by Minister for Communities and Housing as “the final step that enlivens to the important Stage 1 Rental Law Reforms passed by the Parliament in 2021”.[1] 

For tenants, the changes mean increased protections in ending tenancies, and it is now easier for tenants to keep pets. For landlords, increased repair and maintenance obligations have been introduced which align with the staggered introduction of Minimum Housing Standards from 1 September 2023 discussed further below. 

Minimum Housing Standards 

The Minimum Housing Standards (‘Standards’) will apply to new leases entered into from 1 September 2023 and all tenancies from 1 September 2024. According to Minister Enoch, the Standards will “help to ensure all Queensland rental properties meet basic safety, security, and functionality standards”[2]. The Standards will require tenanted premises to be, amongst other things: 

  • weatherproof and structurally sound; and
  • free from pests, damp and mould. 

Fixtures and fittings of the premises must also be in good repair. 

Under the commenced changes, tenants must return the entry condition report for the premises within 7 days of occupying the premises, and can authorise emergency repairs up to the equivalent of four weeks’ rent. 

If you own a residential investment property that is tenanted, it is important you are aware of these changes and those associated with the upcoming implementation next year. Now is the time to plan ahead for any work that may be needed to comply with the Standards and the legislation by 1 September 2023. 

If you own a property in a community titles scheme, you should aim to clarify your personal obligations as owner with the body corporate prior to the Standards being enforced in September 2023. The new regulations may cultivate disputes in body corporate schemes as to who is responsible for what – the owner or the body corporate, and therefore it is important owners think ahead.

Ending tenancies

From 1 October 2022, landlords are no longer able to end tenancies ‘without grounds’. However, tenants are able to end tenancies in this manner. Tenants can also end tenancies in situations where the property is not in good repair or fails to meet the Standards. 

There will be new grounds for property owners to end tenancies, including ending a fixed term agreement: 

  • for undertaking significant repair or renovation;
  • for change of use; or
  • in preparation for sale of the property. 

However, where there has been a serious breach of a lease by a tenant, landlords will have to seek an order from QCAT to terminate the tenancy. 

Pets 

The changes will make it easier for tenants to keep pets. The tenant can seek the owner’s consent, and owners can only refuse a request to keep a pet on identified reasonable grounds. For example, if keeping the pet would be in breach of the law or applicable by-laws. Consent may be subject to conditions such as only keeping the pet outside. If property owners do not respond to requests within 14 days, consent will be implied. 

If you would like further guidance around the reforms and their effect on your personal circumstances, please contact us by email or phone 07 3220 1144. Likewise, if you require assistance with another property-related matter, we can certainly assist.

[1] https://statements.qld.gov.au/statements/94557.

[2] https://statements.qld.gov.au/statements/94557.

Sunset clauses and early release of deposits

Sunset clauses and early release of deposits

Home » Building & Construction

Sunset clauses and early release of deposits

}

3 min read

25 Oct 2022

Share:

  • r
    Key Takeaways
  • An “off the plan” contract is a sale contract for a lot that does not yet exist - usually a vacant block of land in a housing estate that is yet to be subdivided, or a proposed lot under construction in a community titles scheme.
  • Public feedback pertaining to “off the plan” contracts is currently under review by the Queensland Government.
  • Once the feedback is assessed, potential change to the use of sunset clauses by developers (in their capacity as seller) to terminate the contract and the early release of deposits prior to settlement may be implemented.

Stay Up-To-Date

Subscribe to receive updates specific to your preferences

As part of the Queensland Government’s Property Law Review currently underway, two online surveys were released (one for consumers and one for developers) regarding issues around residential off-the-plan contracts. Feedback received from those surveyed will be reviewed and assessed over the coming months.

In an effort to respond to concerns of buyers of “off the plan” properties, particularly given the rapid rate of migration of interstate residents to Queensland during the peak of Covid-19, the Government identified two key issues for public feedback: 

  1. The use of sunset clauses by developers (in their capacity as seller) to terminate the contract; and
  2. Early release of deposits from a trust account to developers (sellers) prior to settlement, termination or finalisation of the contract. 

To provide context, an ‘off the plan’ residential property sales contract typically refers to a contract for a proposed lot, such as: 

  1. a vacant block of land in a new housing estate; or
  2. a proposed lot to be included in a community titles scheme, such as an ‘under construction’ apartment in a multi-storey building. 

An ‘off the plan’ contract should contain a ‘sunset clause’ which is a term in the contract allowing a buyer and/or seller to terminate the contract if the contract does not settle by a specified date. 

For a vacant block of land, section 14(1) of the Land Sales Act 1984 (Qld) states that the seller of a proposed lot must settle the contract for the sale of the lot not later than 18 months after the buyer enters into the contract for the sale of the lot. 

For a proposed lot in a community titles scheme, the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) allows for settlement to occur up to 5.5 years from the date of the contract.

Whilst those dates are the maximum, they can be reduced under the terms of a particular contract if the buyer and seller agree to do so. 

In ‘off the plan’ contracts, settlement can only occur once the proposed lot is registered. Typically, settlement will occur 14 or 21 days from registration of the plan. 

Given the technical considerations and complex requirements in property law, the Government is consulting with community and industry stakeholders to ensure solutions developed as part of the Property Law Review address relevant issues at hand, without producing unintended consequences. 

If you are considering purchasing ‘off the plan’, require a contract review or would like to know more about purchasing registered or unregistered property, please do not hesitate to contact us at email or call 07 3220 1144.