Corporate law Brisbane

Can contractors owe fiduciary duties to principals?

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

Reading Time:

4–6 minutes

A fiduciary duty describes a relationship of utmost faith between two (2) or more people or entities.  It is established law that, generally, an employee owes a fiduciary duty to their employer.[1]  Whether such a duty is owed in the case of a contractor or consultant undertaking work for a corporation pursuant to a contract is a separate question.

When does a fiduciary duty arise for a contractor?

The categories of fiduciary relationships are not closed, meaning that the facts of each situation may give rise to the existence of a fiduciary duty.[2]  This of course includes the case of an independent contractor.  Recognising this, the Federal Court in SBA Music Pty Ltd v Hall (No 3) [2015] FCA 1079 (SBA Music) held the following at [13]:

The critical feature of fiduciary relationships is that the fiduciary undertakes or agrees to act for or on behalf of or in the interests of another person in the exercise of a power or discretion which will affect the interests of that other person in a legal or practical sense.  The relationship between the parties is therefore one which gives the fiduciary a special opportunity to exercise the power or discretion to the detriment of that other person who is accordingly vulnerable to abuse by the fiduciary of his position.”[3]

Importantly it has been recognised in various cases that an independent contractor can owe fiduciary duties to a principal.  Generally, fiduciary duties were owed on the basis that the independent contractor was a director of the relevant company.[4]  An exception, however, is the case of Redwood Anti-Ageing Pty Ltd & Anor v Knowles & Anor [2013] NSWSC 508, wherein an independent contractor in their capacity as a consultant owed a fiduciary duty to a company notwithstanding that they were not a director.[5]  Further, and more generally, a fiduciary relationship may be more readily implied in circumstances where the features common to an employment relationship are observable in the relationship subsequent to the retention of an independent contractor.[6]

Features of contractual relationship establishing fiduciary duties

In the case of Commonwealth v Davis Samuel Pty Ltd (No 7) [2013] ACTSC 146, at [306], the following factors were held to be relevant in determining that an independent contractor owed a fiduciary duty to the Commonwealth, who had retained the contractor’s services:

  • there was a clear relationship of confidence;
  • there was an undertaking by the contractor to provide specified services to the Commonwealth in the interests of the Commonwealth, which were to be carried out in a way that was in large measure indistinguishable from those carried out by an employee;
  • the contractor had scope unilaterally to exercise a power or discretion which may affect the rights of the Commonwealth which was, therefore, put in a position of vulnerability because of access given to the Commonwealth’s facilities;
  • the Commonwealth was dependent on and vulnerable to the contractor; and
  • the contractor was provided with access to confidential information and obliged to respect the confidence of the Commonwealth in that information.[7]

In SBA Music, the question of whether a contractor or consultant owed a fiduciary duty to the company retaining their services was considered.  That case concerned SBA Music, a business providing music ‘solutions’ to retail stores and other businesses.  SBA Music retained Mr. Hall as an independent contractor to provide senior management services which ultimately resulted in him becoming a director of the company.  He undertook the following duties:

  • managing the daily running of SBA’s business;
  • responsibility for strategic direction and planning of SBA Music;
  • managing SBA’s client relationships, including marketing and relationship building;
  • securing new business opportunities;
  • liaising with and building relationships with suppliers and licencing organisation;
  • recruiting, supervising and managing staff; and
  • overseeing finances and expenditure.

Ultimately the Court held, taking into account the above facts, that as an independent contractor who was also a company director, Mr. Hall owed both fiduciary and director’s duties to SBA Music.

Statutory duties under the Corporations Act

As has been recognised as a common theme in the cases considering fiduciary duties of an independent contractor, such duties are often owed as a result of the contractor being a company director.  Further obligations may be impressed upon such independent contractors.  Namely, duties of:

  • good faith;[8]
  • proper use of position;[9] and
  • proper use of information.[10]

For more information on these statutory fiduciary duties, please read our article on this topic here.

Takeaways

Ultimately, independent contractors who are authorised and empowered to act on behalf of their principal in such a way as to be able to effect the legal or practical interests of that person or entity, will likely owe the principal fiduciary obligations.  This is particularly so if they are carrying on ‘employment like’ work.  Importantly it is not required that an independent contractor be a company director in order to owe a fiduciary duty to a principal.

Links and further references

Legislation

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

Case law

Commonwealth v Davis Samuel Pty Ltd (No 7) [2013] ACTSC 146

Equity 8 Pty Ltd v Shaw Stockbroking Ltd [2007] NSWSC 413

Grimaldi v Chameleon Mining NL (No 2) [2012] FCAFC 6

Redwood Anti-Ageing Pty Ltd & Anor v Knowles & Anor [2013] NSWSC 508

SBA Music Pty Ltd v Hall (No 3) [2015] FCA 1079

Hospital Products Limited v United States Surgical Corporation [1984] HCA 64

Further information about independent contractors

If you need advice on the obligations of independent contractors, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:

[1]           See SBA Music Pty Ltd v Hall (No 3) [2015] FCA 1079, [28] – [30].

[2]           Hospital Products Limited v United States Surgical Corporation [1984] HCA 64, [67].

[3]           See also: Hospital Products Limited v United States Surgical Corporation [1984] HCA 64, [68].

[4]           SBA Music Pty Ltd v Hall (No 3) [2015] FCA 1079, [13]; Commonwealth v Davis Samuel Pty Ltd (No 7) [2013] ACTSC 146; Grimaldi v Chameleon Mining NL (No 2) [2012] FCAFC 6, [68]; Equity 8 Pty Ltd v Shaw Stockbroking Ltd [2007] NSWSC 413, [43]-[58].

[5]           Redwood Anti-Ageing Pty Ltd & Anor v Knowles & Anor [2013] NSWSC 508, [58].

[6]           Equity 8 Pty Ltd v Shaw Stockbroking Ltd [2007] NSWSC 413, [32].

[7]           As summarised in SBA Music.

[8]           Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 181.

[9]           Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 182.

[10]         Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 183.


Related insights about independent contractors

  • WIJOAV v Goldstone – shareholder oppression in a private equity context

    WIJOAV v Goldstone – shareholder oppression in a private equity context

    The recent case of WIJOAV Services Pty Ltd v Goldstone Private Equity Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 622 (WIJOAV v Goldstone) involved a claim of shareholder oppression under section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).  The case established that a shareholder in a private equity fund may be oppressed by a co-investor where…

    Read more …

  • Federal Court dismisses continuous disclosure claim

    Federal Court dismisses continuous disclosure claim

    The Federal Court recently dismissed Australia Securities and Investment Commission’s (ASIC) claim in Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Nuix Limited [2026] FCA 490 (ASIC v Nuix) that Nuix Limited breached its obligations under section 674 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).  Nuix Limited (Nuix) successfully contested ASIC’s allegation that it had breached…

    Read more …

  • Does your start-up meet the ESIC tax-offset criteria?

    Does your start-up meet the ESIC tax-offset criteria?

    Federal government introduced the Tax Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives for Innovation) Act 2016 (Cth) to provide tax incentives for investors in an eligible early stage innovation company (ESIC), including 20% up-front non-refundable tax offset and capital gains tax (CGT) exemption for all types of investors meeting criteria.

    Read more …

  • Valuing ESS Interests

    Valuing ESS Interests

    A company, whether listed or unlisted, can grant its employees an interest in its equity (ESS Interest), including through an employee share scheme (ESS) or employee share option plan (ESOP).  There are restrictions contained in both the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) and Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) (ITAA) that determine the price…

    Read more …

  • ESS vs ESOP – what’s the difference?

    ESS vs ESOP – what’s the difference?

    Employee share schemes (ESS) and employee share option plans (ESOP) are commonly used by corporations to incentivise employees and align performance with company growth by providing them with an interest in the company.  While the terms are often used interchangeably, they have distinct legal and structural differences under Australian law.  This article explains the key…

    Read more …

  • Disputed ESOP – Selak v National Tiles Co Pty Ltd

    Disputed ESOP – Selak v National Tiles Co Pty Ltd

    In the case of Selak v National Tiles, the Vic Supreme Court considered whether a company breached an option agreement governed by the terms of an Employee Share Option Plan (ESOP) by requiring an option holder to execute an undisclosed shareholders’ agreement as a condition of exercising vested options.  

    Read more …

  • Can a unit trust be wound up by the oppression remedies

    Can a unit trust be wound up by the oppression remedies

    The Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corps Act) grants the Courts the power to award remedies under section 233, specifically designed to address situations of oppression within corporate entities under section 232.  These remedies, also known as the “Oppression Remedies”, aim to resolve situations where a company’s conduct unfairly prejudices its members or shareholders.  While primarily…

    Read more …

  • Directors’ obligations to comply with Accounting Standards

    Directors’ obligations to comply with Accounting Standards

    Directors are personally liable for ensuring their company operates in accordance with corporate governance and accounting standards.  Obligations contained in part 2M.2 and 2M.3 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) outline obligations for companies to keep financial records and prepare annual financial and director’s reports.  Sections 180 and 344 of the Corporations Act…

    Read more …

  • Accounting standards matter: the company’s obligation

    Accounting standards matter: the company’s obligation

    Australian accounting standards (Accounting Standards) are often considered solely the domain of auditors and accountants.  However, they are a crucial aspect of corporate law and governance in Australia.  For directors, officers, and their professional advisers, the key issue is not the technical details of the Accounting Standards, but rather their legal enforceability.  A failure to…

    Read more …


Posted

in

,
Send this to a friend