In doing so, it set out general principles which are relevant to recognition of the employment relationship at Australian common law.

The cyclist was never identified, but was wearing a green jacket which in gold lettering bore the name of Vabu's business.

As a result of the crash, Hollis needed knee surgery, was unable to work for a period, and suffered permanent injury.

[6] The trial judge found that the cyclist was employed (in a colloquial sense) by Vabu Pty Ltd, and had been negligent in causing Hollis' injuries.

Couriers were required to wear Vabu's supplied clothing at all times, partly to advertise the company's services.

That case had decided Vabu's couriers were independent contractors in a proceeding under the Superannuation Guarantee Act 1992.

The court instead considered 'the system which was operated thereunder and the work practices imposed by Vabu' as establishing the 'totality of the relationship' between the parties.

[15] Among these facts were: The per-delivery remuneration method was also discussed by the court, but it was said this was compatible with an employment finding.

Vabu knew of dangers to pedestrians yet failed to adopt effective means for couriers to be personally identified.

[28] The court ordered the trial judge's assessment of $176k be paid to Hollis, and that Vabu bear costs.