Moffet

, ,

Sladen snippet – High Court refuses leave to appeal finding that dentist is covered by super guarantee

, ,
Sladen snippet – High Court refuses leave to appeal finding that dentist is covered by super guarantee

As discussed here, the decision in Dental Corporation Pty Ltd v Moffet [2020] FCAFC 118 (16 June 2020) (Moffet) marked an important shift in how the courts have interpreted the employee/contractor distinction for the purposes of superannuation guarantee obligations.

, , ,

Sladen snippet - dentist found to be “employee” for the purposes of superannuation guarantee

, , ,
Sladen snippet - dentist found to be “employee” for the purposes of superannuation guarantee

In the recent decision of Dental Corporation Pty Ltd v Moffet [2020] FCAFC 118 (16 June 2020) , the Full Federal Court found that a dentist fell within the extended definition of ‘employee’ under s12(3) of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth) (SG Act). Section 12(3) broadly provides that an employee is a person who is working ‘under a contract that is wholly or principally for the labour of the person.’