The preeminent focus on dispute resolution in employment law means that Court decisions are relatively rare. February 2022 was remarkable because the High Court handed down two decisions. Both decisions, handed down on 9 February 2022, dealt with a perennial issue – is a worker an employee or a contractor? In both cases, the High Court applied the same reasoning to the particular facts, resulting in quite different conclusions. In the matter of ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd & Anor v Jamsek & Ors, the workers were two truck drivers who had originally been employed as employees and drove trucks owned by their employer but had later been required by a new owner (in 1986) to drive their own trucks and be engaged as ‘independent’ contractors. In 2017, the engagement was terminated by the Respondent. Each of the drivers made claims for employee entitlements. At first instance, a single judge had found that they were independent contractors. On appeal, the Full Court of the Federal Court found that they were employees. The High Court found that they were independent contractors. In reaching this decision, the High Court held that (in the absence of any evidence of sham contracting or other factors that would vitiate the contract) the character of the legal relationship was determined by reference to the rights and duties created by the written agreement between the parties. The High Court placed emphasis on the fact that the partnerships the drivers created with their wives earned income, incurred expenses and took advantages of the tax benefits of a partnership. In the other decision handed down on 9 February 2022, CFMMEU v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd, the High Court found that a worker was an employee. In that case, the worker (Mr McCourt) had been engaged pursuant to a services agreement and a separate agreement between a labour hire company and the engaging entity stated that the all workers placed with the engaging entity would be independent contractors. However, Mr McCourt was subject to significant direction and control and was not operating his own business. The two decisions confirmed that the ‘multiple indicia’ test (which has been the test applied since the High Court decisions in the matters of Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Company Pty Ltd in 1986 and in Hollis v Vabu in 2001 will only be applied when there is no written contract or the express terms of a written contract are unclear or there are other circumstances (e.g. sham contracting) which raise questions about the validity of the contract. Both decisions underline the pivotal role of a written contract. The document itself must do more than simply label the worker as an independent contractor; the provisions must demonstrate that the legal relationship is commercial and not employment in nature. The extent to which the worker is the subject of the direction and control of the entity engaging them and the extent to which they operate their own independent enterprise remains central in determining whether they are an independent contractor or an employee.