FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
ALAM v ECOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD & ORS [2010] FMCA 411
INDUSTRIAL LAW – Termination – penalty proceedings – summary judgment – quantum of penalty – factors for consideration in assessing quantum of penalty.
Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth), ss.77
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), ss.52, 53B, 82
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), ss.235, 244, 247, 659, 661, 665, 719, 722, 723, 799
Federal Court Rules, o.35, r.8
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rr.13.03A, 13.03B, 13.03C, 26.01
Bahonko v Sterjov [2007] FCA 1244
Barto v GPR Management Services Pty Ltd (1991) 33 FCR 389
Buckingham v KSN Engineering Pty Ltd & Anor [2008] FMCA 546
Galvin v Renito Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1005
General Motors- Holden Pty Ltd v Bowling (1976) 12 ALR 605
Hebbard v Bell Potter Securities Ltd (2005) 216 ALR 779
Martin v Tasmanian Development & Resources (1999) 163 ALR 79
McCormick v Riverwood International (Australia) Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 32
McDonald v State of South Australia (2008) 172 IR 256
Mulcahy & Ors v Hydro-Electric Commission (1998) 85 FCR 170
Nikolich v Goldman Sachs JB Were Services Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 784
O’Neill v Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Ltd [2002] FCAFC 188
Walker v Citigroup Global Markets Australia Pty Ltd (Formally known as Salomon Smith Barney Securities Pty Ltd) (2006) 233 ALR 687
Walker v Salomon Smith Barney Securities Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 1099
Applicant: SAMIUL ALAM
First Respondent: ECOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD ACN: 104 067 156 (IN LIQUIDATION)
Second Respondent: MAYLINK PTY LTD ACN: 003 810 151 (IN LIQUIDATION)
Third Respondent: MRS VANESSA M HENDERSON
Fourth Respondent: MR GORDON HENDERSON
File Number: SYG1485 of 2007
Judgment of: Lloyd-Jones FM
Hearing date: 13 May 2010
Delivered at: Sydney
Delivered on: 11 June 2010 REPRESENTATION
Applicant: Mr Alam appeared in person
Respondents: No appearance by any party ORDERS
(1)The Respondents pay a penalty pursuant to s.665(1)(a) of the Workplace Relations Act1996 (Cth) for contravention of s.659(2)(a) in the amount of $10,000.00 which is to be paid to the Commonwealth in accordance with schedule 1 s.357(a) within 21 days of this judgment.
(2)The Respondents pay to the Applicant pursuant to s.665(1)(c) and s.665(4) of the Workplace Relations Act1996 (Cth) an amount of $32,000.00 to be paid within 21 days of this judgment.
(3)The Respondents pay the Applicant outstanding annual leave pursuant to s.719(6) and s.235 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) an amount of $9,230.77 to be paid within 21 days of this judgment.
(4)Pursuant to s.82 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), the Respondents pay the Applicant damages for the Fourth Respondent’s breach of s.52 of the Trade Practices Act an amount of $12,850.00.
(5)Pursuant to s.722 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) the Respondent pay interest in respect of Orders 3 and 4 from 2 March 2007 to the date of judgment at the rate of 10.5% per annum.
(6)Pursuant to s.723 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth),…
Continue reading Alam v Ecological Development & Construction Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Alam v Ecological Development & Construction Pty Ltd [2010] FMCA 411
- Case
- [2010] FMCA 411
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the employer had indeed contravened the specified provisions of the Workplace Relations Act and the Trade Practices Act, and if so, what penalties and compensation were appropriate. The court examined the employer's conduct and the evidence provided by both parties, assessing whether the employer's actions constituted breaches of the statutory provisions.
The court found that the employer had contravened the Workplace Relations Act by failing to pay the required penalties, compensation, and outstanding annual leave. Additionally, the employer breached the Trade Practices Act by engaging in conduct that was misleading or deceptive. Consequently, the court ordered the employer to pay a penalty, compensation, outstanding annual leave, and damages for the breach of the Trade Practices Act, as well as interest on the unpaid amounts.
In summary, the court's decision mandated the employer to compensate the applicant comprehensively for the breaches identified, including penalties, unpaid wages, damages, and interest. This ruling underscored the importance of compliance with employment laws and the consequences of non-compliance.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The Respondents pay a penalty pursuant to s.665(1)(a) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) for contravention of s.659(2)(a) in the amount of $10,000.00 which is to be paid to the Commonwealth in accordance with schedule 1 s.357(a) within 21 days of this judgment.
(2) The Respondents pay to the Applicant pursuant to s.665(1)(c) and s.665(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) an amount of $32,000.00 to be paid within 21 days of this judgment.
(3) The Respondents pay the Applicant outstanding annual leave pursuant to s.719(6) and s.235 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) an amount of $9,230.77 to be paid within 21 days of this judgment.
(4) Pursuant to s.82 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), the Respondents pay the Applicant damages for the Fourth Respondent’s breach of s.52 of the Trade Practices Act an amount of $12,850.00.
(5) Pursuant to s.722 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) the Respondent pay interest in respect of Orders 3 and 4 from 2 March 2007 to the date of judgment at the rate of 10.5% per annum.
(6) Pursuant to s.723 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), the Respondent’s pay the Applicant interest on any amount not paid within 21 days of this judgment.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.