Skip to main content
Social Media
  • twitter
  • linkedin
Home
  • About the project
    • About the project
    • Partnerships and Collaborators
    • Coordination Unit
    • Project Management Team
    • International Network of Judges and Legal Scholars
    • Research assistants
  • Case Law Database
    • Case index
    • Database charts
  • News
    • News and announcements
    • Press newsroom
  • Resources
    • Working papers and other resources
    • Media kit
  • Contacts
Back to the previous page

Australia, Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, 5 July 2022, ‎[2022] FedCFamC2G 543‎

Case overview

Share
  • linkedin
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • envelope
  • print
Country
Australia
Case ID
‎[2022] FedCFamC2G 543‎
Decision date
5 July 2022
Deciding body (English)
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
Type of body
Court
Type of Court (material scope)
Civil Court
Type of jurisdiction
Single jurisdiction system
Type of Court (territorial scope)
Federal Court
Instance
1st Instance
Area
Industrial relations / Labor law
Further areas addressed
Freedom to conduct a business
Outcome of the decision
Claim upheld
Link to the full text of the decision
Decision_EN available on www.austlii.edu.au

Case analisys

General Summary

The Applicant (The Fair Work Ombudsman representing the ‎employee) claimed that the Respondent (the Employer) contravened ‎section 716(5) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) by failing to comply ‎with a compliance notice issued on 23 February 2021. The remedy ‎sought by the Applicant on behalf of the employee was that the ‎Respondent pay to the employee her entitlements plus interest and ‎pay a pecuniary penalty for non compliance with the compliance ‎notice. The maximum penalty payable was $33,300; however ‎considering the circumstances, the Applicant was seeking an amount ‎in the range of $14,985.00 - $17,982.00 on behalf of the employee. ‎The Court found in the Applicant’s favour in that she should be paid ‎her entitlements plus interest, but decreased the pecuniary penalty to ‎‎$5000 due to lack of business caused by COVID-19 lockdowns.‎

Facts of the case

The Applicant claimed that the Respondent contravened section ‎‎716(5) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) by failing to comply with a ‎compliance notice issued on 23 February 2021. The Applicant ‎sought that the Respondent pay the employee her entitlements plus ‎interest and that the Respondent pay a pecuniary penalty for not ‎complying with the compliance notice. The maximum penalty ‎payable was $33,300 however considering the circumstances, the ‎Applicant was seeking in the range of $14,985.00 - $17,982.00.‎

The Applicant represented a former employee of the Respondent ‎whose employment was terminated on 24 March 2020 and re-‎employed as a ‎casual employee (rather than a permanent ongoing ‎employee). Upon termination it was claimed that the employee’s ‎entitlements were not paid by the Respondent including accrued and ‎unused annual leave and when working as a casual, she was not paid ‎the award wage and was not paid penalty rates for working ‎weekends. A payment plan was agreed to with the Fair Work ‎Ombudsman to pay the employee $6,654.25 plus interest; however it ‎was not complied with by the Respondent. ‎

The Court found in favour of the Applicant; however, in considering ‎an appropriate penalty the court gave judicial notice of the fact that ‎‎“many businesses throughout the nation have failed as a result of ‎business disruptions caused by the COVID virus and the reactions of ‎State Governments by it…” (at [11]). ‎The Court acknowledged that ‎the Respondent attempted to pay the outstanding amounts but, due to ‎the slowdown of his business as a result of lockdowns, he was unable ‎to do so. The Court ordered a reduced penalty of $5000. ‎

Type of measure challenged
Federal government measure
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Restitution in the form of unpaid wages and entitlements plus ‎interest. In addition a pecuniary penalty was sought for non-compliance.‎
Individual / collective enforcement
Action brought by a qualified entity in the interest of a specific group of claimants for the purpose of collective redress measures such as damages or restitutions and annulment of the administrative decision.
Nature of the parties
  • Claimant(s)
    Private individual
  • Defendant(s)
    Private collective
Type of procedure
Ordinary procedures
Reasoning of the deciding body

The Court took into consideration the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and ‎s716(5) which provided that the maximum penalty for non ‎compliance with a Compliance Notice was $33,300. The Court ‎acknowledged that the penalty imposed must consider the ‎circumstances in which the non compliance occurred and the need to ‎‎“…sustain public confidence in the statutory regime which imposes ‎the obligation.” The Court had regard to case law Kelly v ‎Fitzpatrick [2007] FCA 1080 which outlined the relevant ‎considerations when faced with imposing a pecuniary penalty. ‎These considerations at paragraph [9] were:‎
a) The nature and extent of the conduct which led to the breaches.‎
b) The circumstances in which that conduct took place.‎
c) The nature and extent of any loss or damage sustained as a result ‎of the breaches.‎
d) Whether there had been similar previous conduct by the ‎respondent.‎
e) Whether the breaches were properly distinct or arose out of the ‎one course of conduct.‎
f) The size of the business enterprise involved.‎
g) Whether or not the breaches were deliberate.‎
h) Whether senior management was involved in the breaches.‎
i.‎ Whether the party committing the breaches had exhibited ‎contrition.‎
j) Whether the party committing the breach had taken corrective ‎action.‎
k) Whether the party committing the breach had cooperated with the ‎enforcement authorities.‎
l.‎ The need to ensure compliance with minimum standards by ‎provision of an effective means for investigation and ‎enforcement of employee entitlements and
m) The need for specific and general deterrence.‎ The Court also had regard to the Applicant’s submissions as regards ‎an appropriate penalty being $14,985.00 - $17,982.00.‎

The Court also took judicial notice of the fact that the COVID-19 ‎lockdowns had resulted in significant business disruptions throughout ‎the country and that the proposed penalty was too high. The Court ‎acknowledged the Respondent’s unsuccessful efforts to pay the ‎relatively modest outstanding amount and imposed a pecuniary ‎penalty of $5000.‎

Conclusions of the deciding body

The Court upheld the claim of the Applicant and ordered that the ‎Respondent pay to the employee unpaid wages and pay to the ‎Applicant a pecuniary penalty of $5000. ‎

Balancing Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Fundamental Right(s) involved
Freedom to conduct a business
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
Health v. freedom to conduct a business
General principle applied
Due process
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)

The Court considered the pecuniary penalty in proportion with the ‎modest amount still owed to the employee. The Court also took a ‎reasonable approach in acknowledging the business impact of the ‎COVID-19 shutdowns and the loss of income available to the ‎business to be able to honour all outstanding employee payments.‎

Authors of the case note
  • Kirsty Mackie, Solicitor, Research Assistant, Sessional Academic, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
  • Professor Tina Cockburn, Chief Investigator, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
Case identified by
Nicole Kroesche
Published by Chiara Naddeo on 17 October 2022

More cases from Australia

  • Australia, State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia, 21 September 2022, Board of Australia and Narin [2022] WASAT 86
    Area: Sanctions and remedies
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of movement of people, goods and capital
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • Australia, Supreme Court of Western Australia, 23 August 2022, Falconer v. Chief Health Officer [No 3] [2022] WASC 270
    Area: Health law
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to bodily integrity; Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health); Other (Right to work)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Australia, Federal Court of Australia, 27 June 2022, ‎[2022] FCA 741‎
    Area: Vaccination
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of expression; Freedom of movement of people, goods and capital; Freedom to conduct a business; Right to bodily integrity; Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Australia, New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission, 8 June 2022, NSWIRComm 1040
    Area: Privacy and data protection
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to data protection; Right to privacy
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • Australia, Supreme Court of New South Wales, 10 June 2022, ‎[2022] NSWSC 760‎
    Area: Health law, detention and prison law
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of expression; Freedom of information; Political rights; Right to bodily integrity; Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • Australia, Fair Work Commission, 8 July 2022, ‎[2022] FWC 1774‎
    Area: Industrial relations / Labor law
    Fundamentals rights involved: Other (Right to bodily integrity, right to work)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Load 6 more
List all available cases from Australia

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Case Index
  3. Australia, Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, 5 July 2022, ‎[2022] FedCFamC2G 543‎
home

This project and its database have been made possible with the financial support from the World Health Organization

www.covid19litigation.org is run and maintained by the University of Trento
Via Calepina 14, I-38122 Trento (Italy) — P. Iva/C.F. IT-00340520220

Social Media Links

  • twitter
  • linkedin

Terms of use

www.covid19litigation.org
Site purpose

This site is for informational use only. Case law summaries are not legal advices and may not be relied on as such. Anyone seeking for legal advice should obtain appropriate legal counsel.

Site operation

This site may not be fully up-to-date (for example, cases may be reviewed, reversed, or appealed). This site may be taken down at any time without notice. The case law summaries provided on this site may be incomplete or outdated.

Copyright

Any files provided on this site were taken from a source that is, to the University of Trento and its Partners' best knowledge, from a freely available public resource, however, any further use of such files is at the user’s responsibility.

Responsibility

This site is maintained by the University of Trento, with financial support from the World Health Organization (WHO). The University of Trento will not be responsible for any use of the site.

No endorsement

Inclusion of a case on the website does not necessarily involve a view, position, or endorsement by the University of Trento or the WHO, including with respect to any legal matter. The site is not a product of WHO and does not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the WHO.

User account menu

  • Log in

Footer menu

  • Contacts
  • Terms of use
  • Privacy
  • Cookies