Bone v Mini Majhel Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2020] FCCA 1483
•11 June 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Bone v Mini Majhel Pty Ltd [2020] FCCA 1483
[2020] FCCA 1483
11 June 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicant, Bone, sought default judgment against the respondents, Mini Majhel Pty Ltd and another party, in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The dispute concerned alleged contraventions of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth), specifically the failure to pay minimum entitlements in accordance with the Hair and Beauty Industry Award 2010. The respondents failed to defend the proceedings.
The court was required to determine whether it had the power to make declarations of contravention on an application for default judgment, and if so, whether to grant the applicant's claim for compensation under section 545(2)(b) of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth). The court also considered the liability of a corporation for breaches of the Act and the principles of accessorial liability.
The court applied the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, specifically Rules 13.03A and 13.03B, which govern default by respondents and the court's powers in such circumstances. Rule 13.03B(2)(c) permits the court to give judgment for relief that the applicant appears entitled to on the statement of claim and that the court has the power to grant. The court found that the respondents were in default as they had not satisfied the applicant's claim and had failed to file a response within the prescribed time. The court was satisfied that it had the power to grant the relief sought, including declarations of contravention and compensation orders, given the respondents' failure to defend the proceedings and the evidence presented by the applicant.
The court entered default judgment against the respondents for contraventions of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) and ordered the respondents to pay compensation to the applicant.
The court was required to determine whether it had the power to make declarations of contravention on an application for default judgment, and if so, whether to grant the applicant's claim for compensation under section 545(2)(b) of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth). The court also considered the liability of a corporation for breaches of the Act and the principles of accessorial liability.
The court applied the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, specifically Rules 13.03A and 13.03B, which govern default by respondents and the court's powers in such circumstances. Rule 13.03B(2)(c) permits the court to give judgment for relief that the applicant appears entitled to on the statement of claim and that the court has the power to grant. The court found that the respondents were in default as they had not satisfied the applicant's claim and had failed to file a response within the prescribed time. The court was satisfied that it had the power to grant the relief sought, including declarations of contravention and compensation orders, given the respondents' failure to defend the proceedings and the evidence presented by the applicant.
The court entered default judgment against the respondents for contraventions of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) and ordered the respondents to pay compensation to the applicant.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Procedure
-
Employment Law
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Breach
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Bone v Mini Majhel Pty Ltd and Anor (No.2) [2020] FCCA 2603
Cases Cited
27
Statutory Material Cited
7
Fair Work Ombudsman v Al Hilfi
[2015] FCA 313
Arthur v Vaupotic Investments Pty Ltd
[2005] FCA 433