Without a written agreement, can you prove your contractor isn't really an employee?
A painter, a barber shop run-in, no written contract, and a Fair Work hearing. The 5 March 2026 ruling tests the Closing Loopholes classification framework.
When Sanel Novo bumped into Joel Di Lizio of DiLizio Painting at a barber shop in Carina Heights, Queensland in March 2024, what followed was a working arrangement built almost entirely on text messages. No employment contract. No contractor agreement. Just an agreed hourly rate and job-site instructions sent via phone.
More than a year later, it ended badly. Following a workplace injury in June 2024 and a successful Workers' Compensation claim, Novo returned to work in early 2025 under a suitable duties plan. On 14 August 2025, Di Lizio arrived at a University of Queensland worksite to find Novo working on a ladder, contrary to his return-to-work restrictions. An exchange followed, and Novo claimed he was told he "no longer had a place" with the company. He brought a general protections application before the Fair Work Commission, alleging he had been an employee all along.
The Commission disagreed. Commissioner Spencer, in Brisbane, dismissed the application on 5 March 2026, finding Novo was an independent contractor, and that no dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009 had occurred.
The decision applies section 15AA of the Fair Work Act, introduced by the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2024, which commenced on 26 August 2024. That provision reinstated the multifactorial approach to worker classification, requiring assessors to look at the real substance, practical reality and true nature of a working relationship, not just what a contract states. For HR teams that restructured contractor frameworks after the High Court's narrower 2022 approach, this is a direct signal those frameworks may need revisiting.
In this case, there was no contract to review at all. When asked whether any written agreement had existed, Di Lizio acknowledged: "No, there wasn't, no. It's not – we don't typically have the structure to do that. We're a relatively small family business, so, no, there wasn't. ..."
The Commission pieced the relationship together from texts, invoices, tax records, and the conduct of both parties. The indicators pointed toward contracting: Novo held an ABN, invoiced weekly at $50 per hour on most work sites and $60 per hour for work situated further than the ordinary working areas, both above the relevant Award rate. No tax was withheld and no leave was accrued. DiLizio also paid superannuation to Novo totalling $2,087.85, though the Respondents noted this was standard practice for all workers regardless of engagement type. Novo advertised his services under the business name Novo's Painting Prompt & Professional across platforms including Service Tasker, Yellow Pages and Instagram, and had his own clients when the second engagement began.
His own words were telling. In a 2020 text exchange, Novo had written to Di Lizio: "Anyways I am your subbie and no need to proof my self but happy to do so on your request." Notably, Novo put no evidence before the Commission of any relevant differences between that 2020 contractor arrangement, which he openly acknowledged, and the re-engagement from May 2024.
It is also worth noting that Novo's legal representative raised an allegation of sham contracting. The Commission did not make a direct finding on it, as the hearing was confined to the threshold question of whether Novo was an employee at all.
For HR executives and compliance teams, the practical message sits in the detail. Under the Closing Loopholes framework, a written contract is no longer the whole story. How a worker is actually paid, whether they work for others, how much direction they receive in practice — all of it now feeds into the classification assessment. Without a written agreement to anchor that analysis, organisations are left relying on a Commission to reconstruct the relationship after the fact, and that is a costly position to be in.
