SEPL Pty Ltd v FCT [2026] FCAFC 36
Were three brothers each an ‘employee’ (undefined) for FBT purposes?13 While ‘employee’ might take its common law meaning, subject to context, the court noted (at [25]) that it could take a ‘commercial and trade usage’, its ‘natural and ordinary meaning’, or a meaning peculiar to the specific legislation involved.
Where a term has a legal meaning, however, it will take that meaning in the absence of ‘countervailing considerations’14. In a fair work context, the High Court had held that the ordinary meaning of ‘employee’ was its common law meaning15. Nothing displaced that meaning in the present case and it was open to find the brothers were not employees.
This principle is from Episode 132 of interpretation NOW!
Footnotes:
13 s 136(1) Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 (Cth).
14 Herzfeld & Prince [2.170] cited, cf BDM [18.6], Pearce [4.32-4.33].
15 Personnel [2022] HCA 1 [93, 161], ZG Operations [2022] HCA 2 [4].