FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Commonwealth of Australia v King [2019] FCA 787
File number: NSD 687 of 2018 Judge: PERRAM J Date of judgment: 30 May 2019 Catchwords: EDUCATION – penalties – where multiple contraventions of ss 117, 125 and 129 of National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (Cth) – where respondent provided, or offered to provide, vocational education and training (‘VET’) courses, and purported to issue VET statements of attainment without registration – where respondent admitted contraventions and cooperated in production of statement of agreed facts – where agreed submission on appropriate range of penalties – consideration of relevant penalty principles Legislation: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 4F
National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (Cth) ss 3, 5, 117, 125, 129, 137, 141
Vocational Education and Training (Commonwealth Powers) Act 2011 (Tas) s 5
Cases cited: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd [2016] FCAFC 181; 340 ALR 25
Clean Energy Regulator v MT Solar Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 205
Commonwealth v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate [2015] HCA 46; 258 CLR 482
Commonwealth v Jones [2018] FCA 1008
Commonwealth v Reid [2018] FCA 579
Commonwealth v Restar [2016] FCA 657
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Cahill [2010] FCAFC 39; 269 ALR 1
Date of hearing: 13 December 2018 Date of last submissions: 13 December 2018 Registry: New South Wales Division: General Division National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 24 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr P Melican Solicitor for the Applicant: Australian Government Solicitor Counsel for the Respondent: Mr J Kitto Solicitor for the Respondent: James C Kitto Barrister & Solicitor ORDERS
NSD 687 of 2018 BETWEEN: THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Applicant
AND: LEON VERE KING
Respondent
JUDGE:
PERRAM J
DATE OF ORDER:
30 MAY 2019
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Commonwealth provide a short minute of order giving effect to these reasons within 21 days.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
PERRAM J:
Introduction
The applicant, the Commonwealth, has sued the respondent, Mr King, for the imposition of a civil penalty under the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (Cth) (‘the Act’). Prior to the trial of the matter the parties reached an accommodation. They have agreed that a civil penalty of between $95,025 and $137,813 should be imposed upon Mr King and that certain declarations about his contravening conduct should be made. They also agree that Mr King should pay the Commonwealth’s costs of the proceedings which they agree should be fixed at $75,000. For the reasons which follow, I will impose a civil penalty of $125,000 and make the other orders which are agreed.
Background and contraventions
The Act regulates the provision of vocational education and training (‘VET’). It does so by means, inter alia, of…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Commonwealth of Australia v King and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2019] FCA 787
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The key legal issue for the court was to determine the appropriate penalty for Mr King's contraventions of the Act. The court had to consider the nature and seriousness of the contraventions, Mr King's conduct, and the relevant penalty principles set out in the Act. The court found that Mr King had engaged in multiple contraventions of the Act and that he had admitted the contraventions and cooperated in the production of a statement of agreed facts. The court also found that the agreed submissions on the appropriate range of penalties were appropriate. In determining the appropriate penalty, the court considered the relevant penalty principles and the agreed submissions on the appropriate range of penalties. The court found that a penalty of $125,000 was appropriate.
The court imposed a civil penalty of $125,000 on Mr King and made the other orders which were agreed upon by the parties. The court also ordered Mr King to pay the Commonwealth's costs of the proceedings, which were agreed to be fixed at $75,000. The court noted that the Commonwealth should provide a short minute of order giving effect to these reasons within 21 days. Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Commonwealth provide a short minute of order giving effect to these reasons within 21 days.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
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
Returning to s 117, its full text is as follows:117 Civil penalty—providing, or offering to provide, all or part of a VET course without registration(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:(a)the person provides, or offers to provide, all or part of a VET course in a referring State or a Territory; and(b) the person is not an NVR registered training organisation.Civil penalty: 600 penalty units.(2) A person contravenes this subsection if:(a) the person is a registered provider (other than a secondary school); and(b)the person provides, or offers to provide, all or part of a VET course in a non‑referring State; and(c) the person is not an NVR registered training organisation.Civil penalty: 600 penalty units.(Note omitted) The expressions ‘NVR registered training organisation’ and ‘VET course’ are defined in s 3 in these terms:3 Definitions...NVR registered training organisation means a training organisation that is registered by the National VET Regulator as a registered training organisation under this Act....VET course means:(a)the units of competency of a training package that is endorsed by the Ministerial Council; or(b) the modules of a VET accredited course; or(c)the modules of a course accredited by a VET Regulator of a non‑referring State. Some of these expressions are themselves the subject of further definitions in s 3 but it is not necessary to drill down any further. This is because the parties agree: (a) that Mr King was not an ‘NVR registered training organisation’; and (b) that the two courses Mr King taught parts of were VET courses. During the relevant period, Mr King was the sole director and shareholder of Crown Consulting & Auditing Pty Ltd, which was itself the trustee of The King Family Trust trading as Crown Consulting and Auditing (ABN 19 348 951 647). Neither of those entities was an ‘NVR registered training organisation’. The conduct in this case was all engaged in either by Mr King himself or through those entities. The first course was a first aid training course. Mr King taught part of this course to approximately 10 staff of Incat Tasmania Pty Ltd (‘Incat’) on 20 January 2014 at premises in Launceston, Tasmania. The precise unit taught was ‘HLTFA311A – apply first aid’. The second course was a traffic management course. Mr King taught part of this course to approximately 11 clients of an employment placement firm, Max Solutions Pty Ltd trading as Max Employment, on 8 September 2016 from premises in Launceston. He taught two units of the course, being ‘RIIWHS302D – implement traffic management plan’ and ‘RIIWHS205D – control traffic with stop-slow bat’. In both cases, his actions in doing so constituted contraventions of s 117(1). Mr King also issued persons who attended various of his courses with certificates of attainment. These purported to be, but were not, VET statements of attainment. He did this on 31 occasions arising out of training provided on six occasions between May 2014 and 8 September 2016. All 31 certificates of attainment were in evidence. I will set one of them out so that the contraventions can be more fully understood. For privacy reasons, I have omitted the name of the person to whom the certificate was issued. I have also omitted the artwork. Whilst the certificates all differed to an extent, they did not do so to a material degree.CCA Pty Ltd – Training Certificate of AttainmentThis certificate is awarded to.[NAME OF RECIPIENT REDACTED].For attendance & participation in: CONFINE SMALL WORKPLACE EMERGENCIES – PUAWER008B. – FIRE EXTINGUISHER & FIRE BLANKET.Date: 14th May 2014.Location of training: LAUNCESTON. TASMANIA.Signed: Date:(Artwork omitted.)