CONTRACTUAL BENEFIT CLAIM WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION CITATION : 2026 WAIRC 00149 CORAM :Commissioner C Tsang HEARD : Friday, 13 February 2026 DELIVERED : Monday, 16 March 2026 FILE NO. : B 50 OF 2025 BETWEEN : David Mark Bignold Applicant AND The Orange Card Pty Ltd Respondent CatchWords : Industrial Law (WA) – Contractual benefit claim for wages, superannuation and reimbursement of expenses – Whether the true nature of the relationship is that of employment despite the contract being a contract for services – Evidence uncontested – Onus on applicant to establish both the claim and the quantum of the claim on the balance of probabilities Legislation : Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA), s 7, s 7A, s 29(1)(d) Industrial Relations Commission Regulations 2005 (WA), reg 24(2)(b) Industrial Relations Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (WA) Result : Application granted in part Representation: Applicant : Mr D M Bignold Respondent : No appearance Case(s) referred to in reasons: HotCopper Australia Ltd v Saab [2001] WAIRC 03827 Oze-Igiehon v Uber Technology Inc [2017] FCA 1024 Shaddock v Cockburn Cement Ltd [2004] WAIRC 11726 === REASONS FOR DECISION === On 12 June 2025, the applicant (Mr Bignold) filed a Form 3 – Contractual Benefit Claim (Form 3), claiming $43,310.[03] in denied contractual benefits to ‘recover unpaid wages, recover unpaid expenses, no super payment’s’ from The Orange Card Pty Ltd (respondent), as follows: 12/8 – 18/11 – Nett 883.46 x 15 13,251.90 25/11 – 2/6 – Nett 1250.45 x 29 36,263.[05] Expenses not paid 562.00 Not including accrued leave/superTotal 50,076[.95] Less: 2 x 883.46 (Nett); 1 x 5000 (Don’t know no payslip) 6,766.92 Total Outstanding 43,310.[03] Principles Mr Bignold’s claim is made pursuant to s 29(1)(d) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) (Act), which states: 29. Who may refer industrial matters to Commission (1) An industrial matter may be referred to the Commission – … (d) in the case of a claim by an employee that the employer has not allowed the employee a benefit, other than a benefit under an award or order, to which the employee is entitled under the contract of employment – by the employee; Sharkey P outlined the principles that apply in denied contractual benefit claims under the Act in HotCopper Australia Ltd v Saab [2001] WAIRC 03827 (HotCopper) [34]: The limitations (and/or conditions precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction and/or power) include the following: (a) The claim must relate to an ‘industrial matter’, as defined in s.7 of the Act. (b) The claim must be made by an ‘employee’, as defined in s.7 of the Act. (c) The benefit claimed must be a contractual benefit, i.e. the claimant must be entitled to the claim under his/her contract of service. (d) The subject contract must be a contract of service. (e) The benefit must not arise under an award or order of the Commission. (f) The benefit must have been denied by the employer. Pertinent to the principles in (b) and (d) of HotCopper [34], Mr Bignold attached to his Form 3 his ‘National Sales Director Contract’ signed on 8 August 2023 (Contract). The Contract is 14 pages long, and on pages 1 and 2 defines ‘TOC’ as the respondent, and contains the following definitions: NSD means the person contracted to deliver the Services and includes the employees, principals and agents of the National Sales Director and any other persons duly authorised to act on the NSD’s behalf in relation to providing the Product and/or Services of TOC. National Sales Director means the National Sales Director role in providing the Product and/or Service/s set out in Schedule 1 to this Contract. Services means those services to be provided by the NSD to TOC set out in Schedule 1 to this Contract and any other services agreed to by the parties from time to time. Term means the period from the Commencement Date until such date that this Contract is terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Contract. Schedule 1 to the Contract on page 11 states: SCHEDULE 1 – TOC Products and Services Respect@Work First Step AOD (formerly PRO) AOD+ (formerly PRO+) White Labelling Future courses Schedule 2 to the Contract on page 12 states: REMUNERATION SCHEDULE 2: TABLE 1 SALARY AMOUNT PA : MONTHLY SALES TARGET $90,000.00 + Super : $40,000.00 (Nett) Fuel allowance for travel over 100km, logbook required via TOC issued credit card. Parking expenses paid via TOC issued credit card Commission (amount TBD) to be paid ABOVE agreed KPI (TBD) Working hours as per 0830–‍1730 Mon–Fri, minimum 40 hours per week, with some additional unclaimed overtime within reason if required. If additional overtime exceeds expectations, negotiated hourly pay can be agreed between both parties for outside jobs etc. Opportunity for Pay increase reviewed on yearly performance review. The following allowances applies only when the assignment requires travel outside a radius of 100 kilometres of the Perth metropolitan area Full reimbursement made on behalf of TOC to cover all expenses including meals, accommodation and petrol Meal allowance of up to $50.00/day Accommodation allowance of up to $150.00/night Relevantly, cl 9 of the Contract on page 7 states: 9. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PARTIES 9.1 Nothing contained in this Contract will be construed or have effect as constituting any relationship of employer and employee, agency, partnership or joint venture between TOC and the NSD. 9.2 The NSD agrees that its engagement by TOC is non-exclusive and that TOC may engage other Sales team members to provide services that are identical with or similar to the Services during the Term. 9.3 Subject to Clause 8 [Protective Restraints], TOC agrees that the NSD may provide services that are identical with or similar to the Services to third parties during the Term. Given the terms of the Contact, specifically cl 9 (at [8] above), in considering the principles in HotCopper [34] (at [3] above) it is also necessary to consider s 7A of the Act, which was inserted by the Industrial Relations Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (WA) and applies to claims filed from 31 January 2025: 7A. Determining whether individual is employee or person is employer (1) This section applies for determining, for the purposes of this Act, the LSL Act or the MCE Act – (a) whether an individual is an employee of a person; or (b) whether a person is an employer of an individual. (2) The matter is determined by ascertaining the real substance, practical reality and true nature of the relationship between the individual and the person. (3) For the purposes of subsection (2), consideration must be given to the totality of the relationship between the individual and the person, including – (a) the terms of the contract governing the relationship; and (b) other factors relevant to the totality of the relationship, including how the contract is performed in practice. Note for this section: This section was enacted as a response to the decisions of the High Court of Australia in Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 1 and ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd v Jamsek [2022] HCA 2. The respondent The Commission obtained ASIC company searches of the respondent on 13 June 2025, 23 July 2025, 10 October 2025 and 21 January 2026. Each of these searches states: The respondent was registered on 9 October 2017. At registration, the officeholders were: David Charles Hobbs: director and secretary to 17 June 2020; and Rodney Bridge (Mr Bridge): director to 1 June 2023 and secretary from 12 August 2020 to 1 June 2023. Mr Bridge was the sole director and secretary from 12 August 2020. Andrew Choon Kheng Tan (Mr Tan) was the sole director and secretary from 10 May 2023 to 10 February 2025. Since 10 February 2025, Remo Wayne Parsons (Mr Parsons) is the sole director and secretary. Since 1 September 2024, the respondent’s principal place of business is Suite 10, 24 Parkland Road, Osborne Park, Western Australia. Since 3 October 2024, the respondent’s registered address is DPS Tax Consultant at Unit 2, 278 Beaufort Street, Perth, Western Australia. Regulation 24(2)(b) of the Industrial Relations Commission Regulations 2005 (WA) states: (2) Where any notice or document is required to be served under the Act or these regulations such service may be effected – … (b) in the case of a corporation … by leaving it at, or sending it by pre-paid post to, its principal place of business or principal office in the State or the registered office of the corporation; or On review of the Commission’s records, I am satisfied that each of the following documents was served on the respondent: The Form 3. The Notices of Hearing listing the Directions Hearing on 26 September 2025. The Directions ([2025] WAIRC 00809) issued on 26 September 2025, which required the parties to file the outlines of witness evidence and documents and the outline of submissions that each party intended to rely upon at the hearing. The Notices of Hearing listing the hearing on 13 February 2026 (Hearing). The respondent did not file any documents nor respond to any of the Commission’s correspondence, and did not attend the Hearing. Given the respondent was duly notified of the Hearing, I was satisfied that the Hearing could proceed in the respondent’s absence. The evidence At the Hearing, Mr Bignold gave the following evidence: He commenced working for the business trading as ‘The Orange Card’ on 1 November 2021, when he commenced employment with Sideffect Australia Ltd (Sideffect) pursuant to a ‘Contract of Employment – Salary Employee’ dated 18 October 2021 as National Sales Manager on a full-time basis, on an annual salary of $90,000 (Exhibit 5). In 2023, the business was sold to Mr Tan. Mr Tan issued him with the Contract (Exhibit 6) (see [4]–‍[8] above). In 2025, the business was ‘taken over’ by Mr Parsons (see [10(e)] above). Mr Parsons did not issue him with a new contract, so he ‘just continued on the one that I had from [Mr Tan]’, i.e. Exhibit 6. He read Exhibit 6 when it was issued to him and understood Exhibit 6 to be ‘exactly the same as my old employment contract’, as Exhibit 6 stated that he was employed in the position of National Sales Director which was the position he had been performing for the prior two-and-a-half years. Other than issuing him with the Contract, Mr Tan did not effect any other changes to his work. His salary, hours of work, and duties remained unchanged. His job involved signing up new customers. He also recruited sales agents nationally to sell the respondent’s courses. He was the point of contact for the agents. The agents were on a commission-only arrangement and would invoice the respondent a percentage of the new business that they secured. The agents’ work was no different to his, with the exception that in addition to selling the respondent’s courses, he would also create courses for customers. An example is the online training course on responsible pet ownership that he created for the RSPCA. He remained on an annual salary of $90,000 from the time he commenced employment with Sideffect on 1 November 2021 until his contract with the respondent ended (in the week beginning Monday, 9 June 2025). He was the sole employee and reported to Mr Parsons. The business was originally located at 80 Albert Street, Osborne Park. Mr Tan found new premises when he took over the business in Parkland Road, Osborne Park (see [10(f)] above). He attended the office most days. The Parkland Road office remained the business’ office for approximately one month after Mr Parsons took over the business from Mr Tan. Thereafter, from November 2024, he performed his duties from home. When he reported to Mr Tan, he was paid weekly, provided with payslips, and was required to log onto Xero (payroll software) to apply for leave. Mr Tan stopped paying him ‘towards the end of the year’ and when Mr Parsons took over he ‘never received another formal payslip’. Exhibit 1 is a payslip he has located for the Pay Period 03/07/2023–‍09/07/2023, Payment Date: 10/07/2023. It states: EMPLOYMENT DETAILS Pay Frequency: Weekly Annual Salary: $90,000 YTD Ordinary Hours : $1,730.77 Exhibit 2 is an email he has located for leave he applied for through Xero. It states: From: noreply@post.xero.com Sent: Monday, 12 August 2024 6:55pm To: David.bignold@bigpond.com Subject: Andy Tan has approved your leave application Your Leave Request Has Been Approved! Approved from 8 August 2024 – 8 August 2024 Hi David, Great News! Your leave request from: 8 August 2024 – 8 August 2024 has been approved by Andy. He had agreed with Mr Tan to reduce his hours of work to three days a week. This was to assist Mr Tan with cashflow. He also needed to take time off for medical treatments while he was undergoing nine months of chemotherapy. Exhibit 4 is the schedule he has prepared of the amounts he is owed. It states: WEEK : AMOUNT 1 : 883.46 2 : 883.46 3 : 883.46 4 : 883.46 5 : 883.46 6 : 883.46 7 : 883.46 8 : 883.46 9 : 883.46 10 : 883.46 11 : 883.46 12 : 883.46 13 : 883.46 14 : 883.46 15 : 883.46 16 : 1250.45 17 : 1250.45 18 : 1250.45 19 : 1250.45 20 : 1250.45 21 : 1250.45 22 : 1250.45 23 : 1250.45 24 : 1250.45 25 : 1250.45 26 : 1250.45 27 : 1250.45 28 : 1250.45 29 : 1250.45 30 : 1250.45 31 : 1250.45 32 : 1250.45 33 : 1250.45 34 : 1250.45 35 : 1250.45 36 : 1250.45 37 : 1250.45 38 : 1250.45 39 : 1250.45 40 : 1250.45 41 : 1250.45 42 : 1250.45 43 : 1250.45 44 : 1250.45 ‘883.46’ is the nett amount he received in his bank account when he was working three days a week and ‘1250.45’ is the nett amount he received in his bank account when he was working full-time. The amounts in Exhibit 4 total $49,514.95, and from this is to be deducted $6,766.92 which he received in December 2024 and February 2025 from Mr Tan who ‘still had access to the bank account in those days. [Mr Tan] paid me but it was made by [Mr Parsons, who] insisted that it was done. [Mr Parsons] was in charge by that stage’: Date : Payments 16/12 : 1766.92 31/12 : 2000 24/2 : 3000 His employment ended when Mr Parsons effectively shut down the business on Monday, 9 June 2025, by disabling the LMS (learning management system) and the email server, which prevented him from logging into the business’ systems. However, he was still working that week as ‘[Mr Parsons] never terminated me or finished me or anything else, he just went missing’ and ‘I still had customers ringing me up’. In relation to expenses, there was a practice in place where whatever he spent for the business (for example, if he had to buy cables or a mouse for presentation or audio visual equipment, or if he bought milk for morning tea for clients), he would submit the invoice for the expense and be reimbursed for it. Exhibit 7 is a list of beverages that have been charged to his Lake Karrinyup Country Club (LKCC) account on 3 April 2025, totalling $171.13. On this day, he had three or four back-to-back meetings at LKCC. In the morning, he met with John Shingleton and Chris McCarthy. In the afternoon he met with Mr Bridge. Exhibit 8 is an email he sent to Mr Parsons on 24 May 2025, which refers to Exhibit 7, and states: Hi Please see attached the invoice for entertaining clients at LKCC on 03/04/2025. John Shingleton, Rodney Bridge, Chris McCarthy Outstanding for immediate payment: LKCC 13/01 2025 $150 LKCC 03/04 2025 $171.00 Mobile Phone allowance December 2024 to May 2025 @ $40 months 6 months = $240.00 Total outstanding $561.00 Can you please confirm when this outstanding balance will be processed. Exhibit 8’s reference to ‘LKCC 13/01 2025 $150’ relates to the light working lunch that he had at LKCC with Mr Parsons, the Chairman of Fortuna Insurances and Peter Newbound (General Manager of Fortuna Insurances) on 13 January 2025. While Exhibit 8 refers to a monthly mobile phone allowance of $40 per month, the correct amount was $39 per month. This correction reduces the total expenses claim to $555.13. He would submit his invoices, and they would be reimbursed directly to his bank account once a month. The amount varied between $20 to $200 a month depending on the expenses incurred during that month. Schedule 2 of the Contract (at [7] above), states that ‘when the assignment requires travel outside a radius of 100 kilometres of the Perth metropolitan area’ that there will be ‘full reimbursement made on behalf of TOC to cover all expenses including meals, accommodation and petrol’. This clause applied once when he was required to travel to Busselton. Exhibit 3 is an email he sent to Mr Parsons on 30 May 2025, which evidences that he was an employee and evidences that he made a claim for his unpaid wages from the respondent. It states: (original emphasis) Hi Remo, As you know, the business is facing serious operational and financial challenges … My Proposal: I propose a business continuity and recovery agreement where I take full control of all sales and agent engagement operations, allowing us to rebuild revenue and trust quickly. The structure would be as follows: Revenue Sharing Agreement … From first gross revenue, I will retain 50% until my outstanding $35K (plus agreed expenses) is repaid. A calculated amount will also be paid to my superannuation. Consideration Although the respondent did not attend the Hearing or file any material, Mr Bignold bears the onus of establishing his claim on the balance of probabilities. The respondent’s absence does not relieve the Commission of the obligation to scrutinise the claim against the requirements in HotCopper [34] and the evidentiary basis for the amounts claimed. However, as the respondent did not attend the Hearing, Mr Bignold’s evidence is uncontested. Therefore, while Mr Bignold did not produce any bank statements or other documentary evidence to support the amounts claimed, Mr Bignold’s evidence may be accepted where it is internally consistent. Is Mr Bignold an ‘employee’? / Is the Contract a contract of service? The requirements in paragraphs (b) and (d) of HotCopper [34] are interrelated and conveniently dealt with together. Pursuant to s 7A(3)(a) of the Act, requiring consideration of the terms of the contract governing the relationship, cl 9 of the Contract casts the relationship between Mr Bignold and the respondent as an independent contracting arrangement. Pursuant to s 7A(3)(b) of the Act, requiring consideration of other factors relevant to the totality of the relationship, including how the Contract is performed in practice, Mr Bignold gave evidence that: He reported directly to the sole director, Mr Parsons. Other than when he negotiated to vary his working hours to three days a week, he worked full-time hours. He was paid a fixed salary of $90,000 per annum, which was paid weekly, and was reduced proportionately when he agreed to vary his working hours to three days a week. The Contract stated that his working hours were to be 8:30am–5:30pm, Monday to Friday, working a minimum of 40 hours per week, in addition to reasonable additional hours with no entitlement to claim overtime for the reasonable additional hours. His weekly salary payments were accompanied by payslips. Exhibit 1 refers to: His ‘Employment Details’ and his ‘Annual Salary’. His ‘Salary & Wages’ for working 40 ‘Ordinary Hours’. The withholding of PAYG tax. A superannuation contribution calculated at 11% of the ordinary hours amount. He was required to use Xero to apply for leave and his leave was approved by the respondent’s director (Exhibit 2). While he used his own mobile phone, the respondent agreed to reimburse his monthly phone bill. Apart from using his own mobile phone, the respondent supplied him with all the necessary tools and resources. Prior to November 2024, he performed his duties from the respondent’s offices. Section 7A of the Act (at [9] above), provides that ascertaining the real substance, practical reality and true nature of the relationship between Mr Bignold and the respondent requires that consideration be given to the totality of the relationship, which includes the matters at [18]–[19] above. Having considered these matters, I am prepared to find that Mr Bignold was an employee and that the Contract was, in substance, a contract of service. Does the claim relate to an ‘industrial matter’ as defined in s 7 of the Act? Section 7 of the Act defines an ‘industrial matter’ as follows: industrial matter means any matter affecting or relating or pertaining to the work, privileges, rights, or duties of employers or employees in any industry or of any employer or employee in the industry and, without limiting the generality of that meaning, includes any matter affecting or relating or pertaining to – the wages, salaries, allowances, or other remuneration of employees or the prices to be paid in respect of their employment; … Mr Bignold’s claim is for unpaid wages, superannuation contributions and unreimbursed expenses arising from his performance of the National Sales Director role for the respondent. Given the finding at [20] above, Mr Bignold’s claim plainly relates to an industrial matter as defined in s 7 of the Act. Is the benefit claimed a contractual benefit, i.e. is Mr Bignold entitled to claim wages, superannuation and the reimbursement of expenses under the Contract? Schedule 2 of the Contract states Mr Bignold’s remuneration as ‘Salary Amount PA’ of ‘$90,000.00 + Super’, at a ‘Base Weekly Amount’ of $1,730.77. Therefore, I am satisfied that the Contract entitled Mr Bignold to weekly wages of $1,730.77 gross. I have considered whether the reference to ‘+ Super’ creates a contractual entitlement to the payment of superannuation contributions in addition to the statutory obligations under the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth) (SGA Act). As outlined in Oze-Igiehon v Uber Technology Inc [2017] FCA 1024 [10]–[12], [15]–[16] citing Shaddock v Cockburn Cement Ltd [2004] WAIRC 11726 [6], the liability to pay superannuation arises as a statutory obligation under s 16 of the SGA Act and, without more, is not a contractual entitlement: [The superannuation guarantee charge statutory scheme] 10 The relevant statutory scheme for the applicant’s claims comprises the SGA Act and the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Act 1992 (Cth) (SGC Act), which are to be read as one: s 3 of the SGC Act. 11 In general terms, this statutory framework creates an obligation for an employer to provide a prescribed minimum level of superannuation to all employees: Roy Morgan Research Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2010] FCAFC 52 at [4]. Where an employer fails to make superannuation contributions as required, the employer is liable to pay a tax imposed by the SGC Act, known as a superannuation guarantee charge. 12 Section 5 of the SGC Act establishes an obligation to pay a superannuation guarantee charge, by imposing the charge ‘on any superannuation guarantee shortfall of an employer for a quarter’. Section 16 of the SGA Act then provides that the obligation is on the employer to pay the charge. Section 15B extends the application of Part 3, including s 16, to contributions for the benefit of former employees. Superannuation guarantee shortfall is to be calculated using the method set out in ss 17 and 19 of the SGA Act. … 15 Whilst the obligation to pay superannuation necessarily depends upon a person being an employee, in the event that superannuation is not paid and there is a ‘shortfall’, this is dealt with by the SGC Act. That shortfall is payable as a debt to the Commissioner and the Commissioner is the one that has standing to recover that debt. I will return to the role played by the Commissioner in relation to the superannuation guarantee charge later in these reasons. 16 The liability to pay a superannuation charge arises as a statutory obligation under s 16 of the SGA Act. It is not a contractual entitlement: Shaddock v Cockburn Cement Ltd [2004] WAIRC 11726 at [6]. I accept that where a contract makes express and specific provision for the payment of superannuation, for example by specifying a particular contribution rate or specifying a particular superannuation fund, a contractual entitlement may arise in parallel with the statutory obligation. However, I am not satisfied that ‘+ Super’ in Schedule 2 does any more than acknowledge the respondent’s existing statutory obligation to make superannuation contributions at the prevailing rate. Schedule 2 does not specify a contribution rate, a particular fund, nor any obligation beyond what the statute requires. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the Contract gives rise to the superannuation benefit claimed. While Schedule 2 of the Contract provides for a reimbursement of expenses for meals, accommodation and travel when an assignment required Mr Bignold to travel more than 100 kilometres outside of the Perth metropolitan area, I am prepared to find that there was a custom and practice pursuant to which reasonable work-related expenses incurred by Mr Bignold were reimbursed by the respondent on his submission of invoices. I am prepared to find that this custom and practice was consistently followed by the respondent and does not contradict the express term in Schedule 2 of the Contract. Accordingly, I am prepared to find that Mr Bignold had an entitlement, under an implied term, to the reimbursement of reasonable work-related expenses supported by the provision of invoices. Does the benefit arise under an award or order of the Commission? I am satisfied that the benefits claimed do not arise under an award or order of the Commission. Was the benefit denied by the employer? Mr Bignold’s uncontested evidence is that the respondent ceased paying him his wages from the week commencing Monday, 12 August 2024, and that other than $6,766.92 paid to him in December 2024 and February 2025, that his wages remained unpaid until the end of his employment (at the end of the week beginning Monday, 9 June 2025). Therefore, I am prepared to find (subject to determining the quantum, discussed below) that the benefit to wages and the reimbursement of expenses were denied by the respondent. Quantum Mr Bignold’s claim, as corrected at the Hearing, totals $43,303.16, comprising of: Nett unpaid wages of $42,748.03 ($49,514.95 minus $6,766.92); and Unreimbursed expenses of $555.13 ($150 and $171.13 for LKCC expenses incurred on 13 January 2025 and 3 April 2025 plus $234 in monthly mobile phone expenses of $39 per month for six months from December 2024 to May 2025 inclusive). As outlined at [24] above, the Contract entitles Mr Bignold to the contractual benefit of a weekly wage of $1,730.77 gross. Accordingly, the respondent’s obligation under the Contract is to pay Mr Bignold $1,730.77 gross, with the respondent having a separate statutory obligation to remit to the Australian Taxation Office the requisite PAYG withholding on this gross amount. However, Mr Bignold’s Form 3 (at [1] above) and Exhibit 4 which he prepared in support of his claim, expresses the amounts claimed as nett amounts. Mr Bignold claims a nett amount of $883.46 a week when he worked three days a week and a nett amount of $1,250.45 a week when he worked full-time hours. Mr Bignold did not provide any evidence in the form of bank statements, payslips or tax returns to support these specific nett amounts. Exhibit 1 records that on 10 July 2023, Mr Bignold was paid $1,730.77 gross, from which PAYG tax of $414 was withheld, resulting in a nett amount of $1,316.77. The difference of the nett amount in Exhibit 1 ($1,316.77) and the nett amount claimed by Mr Bignold ($1,250.45) is $66.32 per week. However, Mr Bignold has consistently claimed in his Form 3, in Exhibit 4 (which was filed with his outline of witness evidence on 23 October 2025), and in giving his oral evidence at the Hearing, that the nett amounts of $883.46 and $1,250.45 are accurate. Mr Bignold’s evidence at the Hearing was that these specific amounts were the amounts he received in his bank account and that he had regard to his bank statements when he prepared the various documents he relied upon in this matter. As outlined at [16] above, in circumstances where Mr Bignold’s evidence is uncontested, his evidence may be accepted where it is internally consistent. However, Mr Bignold bears the onus of establishing both his claim generally and the specific amounts claimed, so where his evidence is internally inconsistent, he may not satisfy the onus on him to establish an element of his claim, even though the respondent has not contested any of his evidence. As outlined at [15(aa)] above, Mr Bignold claims in Exhibit 3 that at 30 May 2025 the amount outstanding from the respondent was ‘$35K (plus agreed expenses)’. Accordingly, there is an internal inconsistency between Exhibit 4 and Exhibit 3. Exhibit 4 was prepared for these proceedings, which commenced on the filing of the Form 3 on 12 June 2025. Exhibit 3 is an email from Mr Bignold to Mr Parsons, with the subject ‘Proposal to Secure Business Continuity and Rebuild Operations’. The introductory paragraph of Exhibit 3 states: Introduction I have sort [sic] external guidance in preparing this proposal, I have demonstrated growth with new clients and the pipeline has options. Given Exhibit 3 pre-dates these proceedings and was prepared with ‘external guidance’, I place greater weight on Exhibit 3 than Exhibit 4. The amount stated in Exhibit 3 ($35,000) is clearly a rounded figure. I have considered whether the rounded figure may reflect a negotiating concession. However, Exhibit 3 was framed as a detailed proposal for business continuity, prepared with external guidance, in which accuracy about the outstanding amount was important to establishing a workable repayment structure. Mr Bignold’s proposal was for him to retain 50% of gross revenue ‘until my outstanding $35K (plus agreed expenses) is repaid.’ In this context, understating the amount owed would have been contrary to Mr Bignold’s own interests. Therefore, I am satisfied that $35,000 represents Mr Bignold’s genuine assessment of his outstanding wages at 30 May 2025. Accordingly, I am prepared to find that at 30 May 2025, the respondent had denied Mr Bignold a contractual benefit in the form of unpaid wages of $35,000. Absent any evidence to the contrary, I am prepared to find that Mr Bignold’s reference is to total unpaid wages of $35,000 as a nett amount. There is no evidence contradicting that Mr Bignold worked a further two weeks after 30 May 2025, namely the weeks beginning Monday, 2 June 2025 and Monday, 9 June 2025, and I am prepared to find accordingly. There is also no evidence contradicting that in those two weeks Mr Bignold was entitled to receive payment of his weekly wages. Given that the evidence establishes that the nett amount received for a full-time working week was $1,250.45, I am prepared to find that Mr Bignold is owed a further $2,500.90 nett for these two weeks. Therefore, I am prepared to find that the respondent denied Mr Bignold $38,056.03 nett, comprising of the following contractual entitlements: Nett unpaid wages of $37,500.90 ($35,000 plus $2,500.90); and Unreimbursed expenses of $555.13 ($150 for LKCC expenses incurred on 13 January 2025; $171.13 for LKCC expenses incurred on 3 April 2025 per Exhibit 7; and $234 in monthly mobile phone expenses at $39 per month for six months from December 2024 to May 2025 inclusive). I acknowledge that the contractual entitlement under Schedule 2 is properly expressed as a gross weekly wage of $1,730.77. However, the evidence, specifically the amounts that Mr Bignold says he received in his bank account and on which he has relied upon throughout these proceedings, is expressed in nett terms. In the absence of evidence of the precise PAYG withholding applicable throughout the claim period, I am unable to calculate the gross equivalent. Accordingly, the order will necessarily reflect the nett amounts established by the evidence. The order will not relieve the respondent of any separate statutory obligations in respect of PAYG withholding. Conclusion For the preceding reasons, I am satisfied that each of the requirements in HotCopper [34] are established. I will make an order that the respondent pay Mr Bignold the sum of $38,056.03 nett within fourteen days of the order issuing.