//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2009] NSWIRComm 67
procedural. The Full Bench ordered that the application by Laureen Margaret Mayo for relief in relation to unfair dismissal is dismissed (see [21]).
The Full Bench found that the company W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Ltd, acting as trustee and carrying on business as W & K Constructions, was the employer. Because that trustee company was a trading (constitutional) corporation, Commonwealth law removed the New South Wales Commission's power to hear the unfair dismissal claim. The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
1,663 words · generated 30/06/2026
Ms Laureen Margaret Mayo filed an unfair dismissal application that, over the course of filings, identified different entities as her employer. The dispute focused on whether the employer was an unincorporated trust trading as W & K Constructions (the W & K Family Trust) or a company, W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Ltd, acting as trustee for that trust and trading under the same name. The respondent maintained the employer was the trustee company and, as such, a trading corporation within the constitutional corporations power. If so, the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (the Workplace Relations Act) would remove the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales' jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim pursuant to s 16(1). The Full Bench heard evidence (affidavits, company accounts, bank cheques and PAYG material), received submissions from both sides, and determined the trustee company was the employer and a trading, constitutional corporation. Consequently the Commission lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application (see [1]–[3], [4], [15]–[21]).
1 cited instrument linked from this judgment.
Three principal factual and legal findings drove the decision.
Identity of the trustee and company. The bench found the trust deed appointed W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Ltd as trustee, and that the trustee and the company were therefore not distinct for the purposes of identifying the employer: "The trustee and the company are one and the same" ([15]). The presence of an ABN in the form 'Trustee for W & K Family Trust' did not create a separate juristic entity. The court emphasised that a trust is not a juristic person and cannot sue or be sued, and that legal property is vested in the trustee ([16]).
Evidence of trading activity by the corporate trustee. The corporation's accounts, the way wages were paid (cheques drawn on the corporation's bank account) and the description of accounts as 'W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Ltd as Trustee for W & K Family Trust trading as W & K Constructions' were accepted as evidence that the corporation, acting as trustee, carried on business (see [18], [19]). The court held the trustee company was engaged in pipe-laying and installation work, and thus in trading activities ([19]).
Legal consequence under Commonwealth law. Because the trustee company was found to be a trading corporation, it fell within the constitutional corporations power (s 51(xx)). The Workplace Relations Act applies to constitutional corporations; s 16(1) of that Act removes State industrial tribunal jurisdiction over matters involving such employers. The bench therefore concluded that the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales did not have power to hear the unfair dismissal application and ordered dismissal ([20]–[21]).
The court also addressed the applicant's tax-law-based argument that the ABN and trust tax filings rendered the trust, rather than the company, the employer. The Full Bench rejected that argument, holding that use of an ABN or filing of a trust tax return mirroring the company's accounts was not a sufficient legal basis to treat the trust as the employer; importantly, no authority was furnished to show that tax practice overrides the equitable doctrine that a trustee, not a trust, is the legal actor ([15]–[17]).
Before this decision, the general principles are well established: a trust is not a separate legal person; the trustee holds legal title and is the entity that can trade and enter contracts. Additionally, the constitutional corporations power encompasses trading corporations. The Full Bench applied these established rules to the facts before it.
After the decision, the concrete outcome is procedural: where a corporate trustee carries on trade and the evidence shows it pays wages and maintains trading accounts, that entity will be treated as the employer for constitutional and industrial jurisdiction purposes. The court reiterated that reliance on tax-formalities (for example, ABN registration in trust name or trust tax returns) will not automatically alter the legal identity of the employer where the trustee company is the legal actor and carries on the business ([15]–[18]).
The judgment expressly relied on authorities discussing trading corporation status (citing Garvey) and on authority describing the legal status of trusts (Solo Waste) to frame the legal principles applied ([16], [20]).
"The trustee and the company are one and the same." ([15])
Plain English: The corporate trustee and the company are not distinct entities for determining who acted as employer. The company, when acting as trustee, is the legal entity undertaking the business.
"W & K Family Trust is not a juristic person; it cannot sue or be sued." ([16])
Plain English: A trust itself is not a legal person. The legal rights and obligations rest with the trustee, not the trust as an abstraction.
"The corporation ... is engaged in the business of pipe laying ... Its accounts and the evidence ... indicate the corporation is engaged in trading activities." ([19])
Plain English: The company, acting as trustee, was actually carrying on the business operations; the accounting and banking records reflect that the company ran the business.
"We are also of the opinion that W & K Holdings ... is a trading corporation and, therefore, a constitutional corporation ... Accordingly, the Commission does not have power to hear the applicant's application by operation of s 16(1) of the Workplace Relations Act." ([20])
Plain English: Because the employer is a company that trades commercially, Commonwealth law applies and the State Commission cannot decide the unfair dismissal claim.
"The Full Bench orders that the application ... is dismissed." ([21])
Plain English: The Commission dismissed the application because it lacked jurisdiction.
This decision will be triggered in fact patterns where:
Practitioners should therefore scrutinise corporate accounts, cheque and payroll records, the trust deed, ABN and ASIC records, and the physical conduct of the business (who signs contracts, who pays suppliers and employees) to establish employer identity.
The judgment itself does not record later judicial treatment. The Full Bench cites Garvey concerning the trading corporation concept and Solo Waste concerning the legal nature of trusts ([16], [20]). For information on how later courts have treated this specific Full Bench decision, users will need to consult subsequent case law databases and citations lists. The present decision stands as an application of established principles to its facts: a corporate trustee carrying on trade is the relevant employer for constitutional and industrial jurisdictional purposes (see [15]–[21]).
This decision leaves several practical and doctrinal questions that may arise in future cases:
Threshold of 'trading activity' for constitutional character. The bench accepted the company's accounts and business activities as sufficient to characterise it as trading. However, borderline cases where a trustee performs limited or administrative acts could require granular analysis of what level and nature of activity suffices to make the trustee a 'trading corporation' for s 51(xx) purposes. The Full Bench relied on factual markers rather than a bright-line test ([18]–[20]).
The evidentiary role of tax formality. The decision emphasises that ABN registration and tax returns in trustee-trust name do not, by themselves, alter legal identity. It would be open for future litigants to produce authority or statutory interpretation demonstrating circumstances where tax practice creates employer identity, but in this case the applicant failed to provide such authority and the court declined to treat tax filings as decisive ([10]–[13], [17]).
Interaction of agency and explicit contractual naming. Ms Mayo's employment contract referred to 'W & K Constructions' and a collective agreement with an ABN. The Full Bench resolved the identity question by reference to the underlying legal ownership and conduct of the business. Future disputes where contracts expressly name a particular legal entity might require closer analysis of whether that contractual naming overrides or aligns with the way the business is actually carried on ([7]–[9], [15], [18]).
Consequences for remedies and limitation periods. While the Full Bench disposed of jurisdictional availability here, it points to the practical effect that employees in similar scenarios must pursue remedies in the forum specified by Commonwealth law. The judgment does not address whether an employee could, in other circumstances, join both trustee and trust-related persons as respondents or how estoppel or election principles might affect remedy pathways.
The degree to which trustee companies can and should differentiate their corporate and trust nomenclature on public registers. The bench noted that W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Ltd did not separately register trading names on ASIC and that the ABN records listed the 'Trustee for' name ([8], [15]). Tax and corporate practitioners may advise different record-keeping practices to avoid uncertainty; the court's ruling suggests that substance over nomenclature will prevail.
Practitioners should treat the decision as a reminder to assemble detailed corporate/trust accounting and banking evidence when contesting employer identity, to prepare to rebut any tax-formality arguments, and to be ready to litigate jurisdictional issues early when the employer might be a constitutional corporation.
CITATION: Mayo v W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Ltd as Trustee for W & K Family Trust trading as W & K Constructions [2009] NSWIRComm 67
APPLICANT: Laureen Margaret Mayo PARTIES: RESPONDENT: W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Ltd as Trustee for W & K Family Trust trading as W & K Constructions
CORAM: Boland J President; Harrison DP; Stanton C
UNFAIR DISMISSAL - Interlocutory proceedings - Jurisdiction - Whether employer of the applicant was a constitutional corporation and that by virtue of the relevant provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales had no jurisdiction to hear and determine applicant's unfair dismissal claim - Whether Trust was an employer - Corporate Trustee - Whether corporate Trustee a trading corporation - Unfair dismissal application dismissed CATCHWORDS: JURISDICTION - Unfair dismissal claim - Whether employer of the applicant was a constitutional corporation and that by virtue of the relevant provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales had no jurisdiction to hear and determine applicant's unfair dismissal claim - Whether Trust was an employer - Corporate Trustee - Whether corporate Trustee a trading corporation - Unfair dismissal application dismissed
Commonwealth Constitution LEGISLATION CITED: Industrial Relations Act 1996 Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth)
CASES CITED: Garvey v Institute of General Practice Education Incorporated [2007] NSWIRComm 159; (2007) 165 IR 62 Solo Waste Aust. Pty. Limited v Inspector McDonald [2005] NSWIRComm 106; (2005) 141 IR 332
APPLICANT: Mr R Edwards, Agent LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT: Mr R Warren of counsel with Mr A Foate, solicitor Catalyst Legal Pty Ltd
CORAM: BOLAND J, President HARRISON DP STANTON C
LAUREEN MARGARET MAYO AND W & K HOLDINGS (NSW) PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR W & K FAMILY TRUST, T/AS W & K CONSTRUCTIONS
Application by Laureen Margaret Mayo re unfair dismissal pursuant to section 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 DECISION OF THE COMMISSION [2009] NSWIRComm 67
1 On 30 September 2008, Laureen Margaret Mayo filed an application for relief in relation to unfair dismissal. Ms Mayo had initially sought relief in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, alleging unfair or unlawful termination of employment. In her application to the Australian Commission Ms Mayo named as her employer "W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Ltd". Subsequently, in her application to this Commission, Ms Mayo named her employer as "W & K Constructions, an unincorporated entity". 2 A disagreement arose between the parties as to which entity was, in fact, the employer of Ms Mayo. In proceedings before Commissioner J Murphy on 9 October 2008 the respondent contended that the employer of Ms Mayo was "W & K Holdings (New South Wales) Pty Ltd as Trustee for the W & K Family Trust trading as W & K Constructions". In those circumstances, it was submitted, the employer was a constitutional corporation and that by virtue of the relevant provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales had no jurisdiction to hear and determine Ms Mayo's unfair dismissal claim. The applicant by this time had changed her position in relation to the identity of the employer and contended that it was not W & K Constructions but rather the owner of that trading name, that being "W & K Family Trust" and, as that was an unincorporated entity, the New South Wales Commission did possess the necessary jurisdiction. 3 The matter was subsequently referred to the President of the Commission pursuant to s 193 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 who determined that a Full Bench should deal with the question of whether the application by Ms Mayo in relation to unfair dismissal was within the Commission's jurisdiction. This decision deals with the jurisdictional issue. 4 Both sides called evidence. The evidence of the respondent consisted, firstly, of two affidavits of William Arthur Leonard who was the sole director of W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Ltd, and Barry Charles Douglas who was a public accountant, with that company as a client. Mr Leonard and Mr Douglas were required for cross-examination. The affidavits were admitted without any relevant objection. However, as he had deposed in his affidavit it quickly became clear that Mr Leonard was severely dyslexic and any cross-examination concerning the content of documents was not going to assist the Commission. Consequently, counsel for the respondent, Mr R Warren, called Mr Anthony Foate, the respondent's solicitor, who had certified on Mr Leonard's affidavit as follows: It being made known to me that the deponent is severely dyslexic and has grave difficulty in reading, I certify that this affidavit was read to him in my presence and he seemed to understand it.
Respondent's submissions 5 The evidence and submissions for the respondent may relevantly be summarised as follows: s W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Ltd is The Trustee for the W & K Family Trust trading as W & K Constructions, s W & K Holdings (New South Wales) Pty Ltd is a corporation with an ACN number, ACN 104 106 498,
s the annual reports and accounts for 2007 refer to "W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Ltd as trustee for W & K Family Trust trading as W & K Constructions", s the Trustee has an ABN number, ABN 17 149 754 980, s the business that trades as "W & K Constructions" has been carried on since 2003 by W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Ltd for the W & K Family Trust, s the business is engaged in earthmoving for the purpose of the installation and maintenance of pipelines and communication cables, s the bank trading account through which the applicant's wages were paid was an account held in the name of "W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Ltd in trust for W & K Family Trust trading as W & K Constructions", s as the employer of Ms Mayo was a constitutional corporation, namely, W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Ltd, by virtue of the provisions of s 16(1) of the Workplace Relations Act, the Commission's jurisdiction to deal with Ms Mayo's unfair dismissal claim was ousted. Applicant's submissions 6 An agent, Mr R Edwards, represented the applicant, Ms Mayo. Ms Mayo was required for cross-examination, albeit brief. Much of Ms Mayo's first affidavit went to the merit of her unfair dismissal claim and not the jurisdictional issue. Ms Mayo did, however, file a supplementary affidavit, which sought to respond to the affidavits of Mr Leonard and Mr Douglas, particularly regarding the issue of which entity employed Ms Mayo. 7 The evidence and submissions for the applicant commenced with the proposition that Ms Mayo was an employee who had been dismissed from her employment. The employer, it was asserted was, "W & K Family Trust" and not the corporation W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Ltd. The chain of reasoning leading to the conclusion that the applicant was employed by W & K Family Trust commenced with the observation that the terms of Ms Mayo's employment were governed by a written contract of employment, which referred to "W & K Constructions" as her employer. The contract also referred to the "W & K Constructions Employee Collective Agreement", which was said to apply to Ms Mayo's employment. 8 The Collective Agreement referred to an ABN number, "ABN 17 149 754 980". Various searches undertaken by the applicant of the Australian Business Register and the Australian Securities & Investments database, revealed that "The Trustee for W & K Family Trust" was a discretionary trading trust with an ABN number, 17 149 754 980 and that it maintained the trading name "W & K Constructions". It was also discovered that "W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Ltd" was listed on the ASIC database with an ACN number "ACN 104 106 498", but searches did not reveal any relationship between "The Trustee for W & K Family Trust", "W & K Family Trust" and "W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Ltd". 9 The applicant submitted that if it was W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Limited that held the ABN number 17 149 754 980, the ABN search would have shown "W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Limited as Trustee for W & K Family Trust trading as W & K Constructions". The searches of the incorporated entity W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Limited revealed there were no trading names registered to that entity. 10 Mr Edwards, for the applicant, submitted that the "Tax Act ensures that the only party that can be an employer as a matter of tax law is the party that maintains an ABN number." W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Limited did not maintain an ABN number. It was further submitted that the ABN number referred to on Ms Mayo's PAYG slip was the ABN number of "W & K Family Trust". Whilst that name appearing on the PAYG slip did refer to W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Limited trading as W & K Constructions, there was no such entity, it was submitted. The entity W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Limited did not own or maintain a trading name and did not act as W & K Constructions as that name suggested on the PAYG slip. 11 Mr Edwards contended that: [T]he tax law says the only person who can deduct from their taxes salary expenses related to the applicant, for instance, is the employer. 12 Mr Edwards submitted that the only tax return filed was by "W & K Family Trust". There was no tax return filed by W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Limited. Deductions for the applicant's superannuation expenses and her salary were made in the Trust's tax return. Therefore, it was submitted, the Trust must be, as a matter of statute law, the employer. 13 Mr Edwards continued by submitting that "under the tax law it is not possible to submit a PAYG tax instalment without an ABN"; the only party under tax law that can lodge a PAYG payment must be the employer. In the present case it was submitted that, "the employer is the ABN which refers to the discretionary trading trust" and that "as a matter of tax law it is the trust that is the employer and that overrides the equitable doctrine that normally a trustee can never be an employer."
14 The other arm of Mr Edwards' submission was that W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Limited was not a trading corporation. He submitted that the accounts referred to in the evidence of Mr Douglas that purported to be the accounts of W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Limited as Trustee for W & K Family Trust trading as W & K Constructions, were, in fact, the accounts of W & K Family Trust. Mr Edwards asserted the Trust was the operating entity and the one that traded, not the corporation. Consideration
15 The evidence in this matter shows, first, that "The Trustee for W & K Family Trust" is W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Ltd and not a separate, distinct entity. The trustee and the company are one and the same. The trust deed appoints W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Ltd as the trustee. The fact that it is "The Trustee for W & K Family Trust" that holds an ABN number and W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Ltd does not, is no basis for suggesting that the Trustee and the Company are two separate entities; they are clearly not. There is no obligation upon a trading corporation (for profit) to obtain a separate ABN if it holds an ABN in its capacity as a trustee of a discretionary trust, which is the case here. 16 W & K Family Trust is not a juristic person; it cannot sue or be sued. A trust is an arrangement for the holding and administration of property under which property is vested in a trustee or trustees which is held by them on behalf of another, or others, namely the cestui que trust or cestuis que trust (beneficiary or beneficiaries) for a particular purpose: Solo Waste Aust. Pty. Limited v Inspector McDonald [2005] NSWIRComm 106; (2005) 141 IR 332 at [16]. The property is legally vested in the trustee. There was no evidence the Trust could be regarded as an entity capable of employing persons. However, it was contended by the applicant that because the "Tax Act ensures that the only party that can be an employer as a matter of tax law is the party that maintains an ABN number" and that as it was the Trust and not the corporation that held the ABN number, it followed that the employer was the Trust. It was also submitted that it was the Trust that submitted a tax return showing deductions for salary and superannuation in respect of Ms Mayo and not the corporation and as the "tax law says the only person who can deduct from their taxes salary expenses related to the applicant, for instance, is the employer" it must follow that the Trust is the employer. 17 ABN 17 149 754 980 is held by the "Trustee for the W & K Family Trust". On the evidence, that trustee is W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Ltd. That corporation's accounts were in evidence. That the corporation as trustee chose to file a trust tax return that mirrored the relevant information in the corporation's accounts is not a basis upon which to conclude that thereby the trust became the employer of the applicant. The applicant was unable to point to any relevant authority to support its contention in this case that, "as a matter of tax law it is the trust that is the employer and that overrides the equitable doctrine that normally a trustee can never be an employer." 18 The corporation's accounts, which were accounts in the name of "W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Limited as Trustee for W & K Family Trust trading as W & K Constructions" and cheque records indicating wages of Ms Mayo were paid by cheques drawn on bank accounts belonging to the corporation, were significant indicators that Ms Mayo was employed by the corporation and not by some other entity or by the Trust.
19 The corporation, as trustee for the W & K Family Trust trading as W & K Constructions, is engaged in the business of pipe laying and pit installation for telecommunications, gas, water and sewerage service industries. Its accounts and the evidence of Mr Leonard, Mr Foate and Mr Douglas indicate the corporation is engaged in trading activities. The Trust does not engage in trading activities. Under the Trust Deed the Trustee is the body that may trade. 20 The weight of the evidence is that Ms Mayo was employed by W & K Holdings (New South Wales) Pty Ltd as Trustee for the W & K Family Trust trading as W & K Constructions. We are also of the opinion that W & K Holdings (New South Wales) Pty Ltd is a trading corporation and, therefore, a constitutional corporation for the purposes of s 51(xx) of the Commonwealth Constitution and s 4 of the Workplace Relations Act (see the discussion of trading corporation in Garvey v Institute of General Practice Education Incorporated [2007] NSWIRComm 159; (2007) 165 IR 62 and the authorities referred to therein). Accordingly, the Commission does not have power to hear the applicant's application by operation of s 16(1) of the Workplace Relations Act. Orders
21 The Full Bench orders that the application by Laureen Margaret Mayo for relief in relation to unfair dismissal is dismissed. __________________________________
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Mayo
W & K Holdings
The Full Bench ordered that the application by Laureen Margaret Mayo for relief in relation to unfair dismissal is dismissed (see [21]).