If you run payroll, courts infer you know what's in it
An HR officer who sent a dismissal letter faces continued exposure in a Fair Work civil penalty proceeding after a court declined to strike out the pleadings against her and instead granted the applicant leave to replead.
The Federal Circuit and Family Court's 23 April 2026 decision in Sha v Snap Innovations Pte Ltd has direct implications for HR professionals across Australia.
Nong Sha was employed as a C++ Engineer by Snap Innovations Pte Ltd, a company which represented to him that it was incorporated in Singapore, from 6 November 2023 until 24 January 2025. He worked entirely in Australia, was paid into an Australian bank account and paid tax to the Australian Taxation Office.
During his employment, Sha alleged he was directed by the Chief Technology Officer and Chief Executive Officer to perform substantial work for a separate Australian company, Utrada. After raising questions about working across two entities, he claimed the company cited redundancy but indicated it was conditional: had he agreed to take on the Utrada role, his job would have been retained.
Sha filed proceedings alleging Snap had dismissed him for exercising workplace rights under the Fair Work Act, failed to make superannuation contributions, provided only 14 days of annual leave per year rather than the statutory minimum, and required him to work excessive hours including evenings and weekends.
Alongside Snap, Sha named three individuals:...
We respect your privacy Telewizja Polska S.A. w likwidacji processes your personal data collected when you visit individual websites on the tvp.pl Portal (hereinafter referred to as the Portal), i...