The nature of an employment relationship is determined by the terms of the contract (written or oral), not by the practical performance of that contract; the characterisation depends on contractual rights and not on circumstances or facts that do not affect those rights.

Where the parties have comprehensively committed the terms of their relationship to a written contract the validity of which is not challenged as a sham nor the terms of which are otherwise varied, waived or the subject of an estoppel, the legal rights and obligations so established should be decisive of the character of the relationship.

Where a written contract between parties whose relationship is in issue is wholly in writing, a court must determine the nature of that relationship by reference to the terms of the written agreement in light of the circumstances surrounding its making, and is not entitled to consider the manner in which the parties subsequently acted in pursuance of such contract, except where subsequent conduct amounts to an agreed variation of the original contract.

The 'own business/employer's business' dichotomy usefully focuses attention upon aspects of the relationship which bear more directly upon whether the putative employee's work was so subordinate to the employer's business that it can be seen to have been performed as an employee rather than as part of an independent enterprise.

The right of control relevant to characterisation of an employment relationship is not the actual exercise of control by the putative employer, but rather the right of the putative employer to control the work of the other; it is this right (rather than its practical exercise) which indicates that a relationship is one of employer and employee.

The legal character of a relationship between parties is to be determined by the rights and obligations which are established by the parties' written contract; the 'label' which the parties may have chosen to describe their relationship is distinctly not determinative of, or even relevant to, that characterisation.

The character of the relationship between parties is to be determined by reference to the rights and duties created by the written agreement which comprehensively regulated that relationship, not by examining how the parties conducted themselves in practice absent evidence of sham or displacement.

When characterising a relationship regulated by a wholly written, comprehensive contract which is not a sham, the question is determined solely by reference to the rights and obligations under that contract; it is not permissible to examine or review the performance of the contract or the course of dealings between the parties.

Where the rights and duties of the parties are comprehensively recorded in a written contract, the legal rights and obligations are decisive of the character of the relationship unless the contract is a sham, has been varied, waived, or is subject to estoppel; subsequent conduct is generally irrelevant to characterising the relationship.

How the parties choose to label their relationship has little bearing on the determination of the true character of the relationship.

Where rights and duties of the parties are exclusively in a written contract and the terms have not been varied or challenged as a sham, the written contract is the decisive factor in determining employment status.

Where there is a wholly written, comprehensive contract not a sham, the determination of employee status is made solely by reference to the rights and obligations under that contract, with focus on whether the work was subordinate to the employer's business, control rights are relevant, and the contractual label is not determinative.