Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Hanssen Pty Ltd
[2019] FCCA 3411
•29 November 2019
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MARITIME, MINING AND ENERGY UNION & ORS v HANSSEN PTY LTD & ORS | [2019] FCCA 3411 |
| Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – Penalty hearing – where the Respondents refused entry to a permit holder to a building site – breach of section 501 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – deliberate behaviour – similar previous proceedings – admission of breach. |
| Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss.501, 546(1), 546(3)(b), 793 Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA), s.49I |
| Cases cited: Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union & Ors v Hanssen Pty Ltd & Ors [2019] FCCA 1664 Kelly v Fitzpatrick [2007] FCA 1080 |
| First Applicant: | CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MARITIME, MINING AND ENERGY UNION |
| Second Applicant: | ROBERT BENKESSER |
| Third Applicant: | PHILIP KENNEDY |
| First Respondent: | HANSSEN PTY LTD (ACN 058 600 427) |
| Second Respondent: | GERARDUS PETER HANSSEN |
| Third Respondent: | DENBY JACKSON |
| File Number: | PEG 384 of 2018 |
| Judgment of: | Judge McNab |
| Hearing date: | 11 September 2019 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 11 September 2019 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Delivered on: | 29 November 2019 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr Scaife |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Eureka Lawyers |
| For the First and Second Respondent: | Mr Hanssen |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Hotchkin Hanly Lawyers |
| There being no appearance by or on behalf of the Third Respondent |
THE COURT DECLARES BY CONSENT THAT:
On 16 April 2018, the Second Respondent (‘Hanssen’) contravened s.501 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (‘FW Act’) by refusing or unduly delaying entry onto the Vue Apartments project being constructed at 63 Adelaide Terrace, East Perth in the State of Western Australia (Premises) by the Second Applicant (‘Benkesser’) in circumstances where Benkesser was seeking to enter the Premises in accordance with Part 3-4 of the FW Act for the purpose of investigating suspected breaches of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 (WA) (‘OSH Act’).
On 16 April 2018, Hanssen contravened s.501 of the FW Act by refusing or unduly delaying entry onto the Premises by the Third Applicant (‘Kennedy’) in circumstances where Kennedy was seeking to enter the Premises in accordance with Part 3-4 of the FW Act for the purpose of investigating suspected breaches of the OSH Act.
On 16 April 2018, the Third Respondent (‘Jackson’) contravened s.501 of the FW Act by refusing or unduly delaying entry onto the Premises by Benkesser in circumstances where Benkesser was seeking to enter the Premises in accordance with Part 3-4 of the FW Act for the purpose of investigating suspected breaches of the OSH Act.
On 16 April 2018, Jackson contravened s.501 of the FW Act by refusing or unduly delaying entry onto the Premises by Kennedy in circumstances where Kennedy was seeking to enter the Premises in accordance with Part 3-4 of the FW Act for the purpose of investigating suspected breaches of the OSH Act.
On 16 April 2018, and by reason of s.793 of the FW Act, the First Respondent (‘Hanssen Pty Ltd’) contravened s.501 of the FW Act by reason of the conduct of Hanssen in paragraph 1 above.
On 16 April 2018, and by reason of s.793 of the FW Act, Hanssen Pty Ltd contravened s.501 of the FW Act by reason of the conduct of Hanssen in paragraph 2 above.
On 16 April 2018, and by reason of s.793 of the FW Act, Hanssen Pty Ltd contravened s.501 of the FW Act by reason of the conduct of Jackson in paragraph 3 above.
On 16 April 2018, and by reason of s.793 of the FW Act, Hanssen Pty Ltd contravened s.501 of the FW Act by reason of the conduct of Jackson in paragraph 4 above.
On 19 April 2018, Hanssen contravened s.501 of the FW Act by refusing or unduly delaying entry onto the Premises by Benkesser in circumstances where Benkesser was seeking to enter the Premises in accordance with Part 3-4 of the FW Act for the purpose of investigating suspected breaches of the OSH Act.
On 19 April 2018, Hanssen contravened s.501 of the FW Act by refusing or unduly delaying entry onto the Premises by Kennedy in circumstances where Benkesser was seeking to enter the Premises in accordance with Part 3-4 of the FW Act for the purpose of investigating suspected breaches of the OSH Act.
On 19 April 2018, Jackson contravened s.501 of the FW Act by refusing or unduly delaying entry onto the Premises by Benkesser in circumstances where Benkesser was seeking to enter the Premises in accordance with Part 3-4 of the FW Act for the purpose of investigating suspected breaches of the OSH Act.
On 19 April 2018, Jackson contravened s.501 of the FW Act by refusing or unduly delaying entry onto the Premises by Kennedy in circumstances where Benkesser was seeking to enter the Premises in accordance with Part 3-4 of the FW Act for the purpose of investigating suspected breaches of the OSH Act.
On 19 April 2018, and by reason of s.793 of the FW Act, Hanssen Pty Ltd contravened s.501 of the FW Act by reason of the conduct of Hanssen in paragraph 9 above.
On 19 April 2018, and by reason of s.793 of the FW Act, Hanssen Pty Ltd contravened s.501 of the FW Act by reason of the conduct of Hanssen in paragraph 10 above.
On 19 April 2018, and by reason of s.793 of the FW Act, Hanssen Pty Ltd contravened s.501 of the FW Act by reason of the conduct of Jackson in paragraph 11 above.
On 19 April 2018, and by reason of s.793 of the FW Act, Hanssen Pty Ltd contravened s.501 of the FW Act by reason of the conduct of Jackson in paragraph 12 above.
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
Pursuant to s.546(1) of the FW Act, the First Respondent shall pay a penalty in the sum of $60,000.
Pursuant to s.546(1) of the FW Act, the Second Respondent shall pay a penalty in the sum of $17,000.
Pursuant to s.546(1) of the FW Act, the Third Respondent shall pay a penalty in the sum of $12,000.
Pursuant to s.546(3)(b) of the FW Act, the Respondents shall pay the penalties set out in paragraphs 17 to 19 above to the First Applicant within 28 days.
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PERTH |
PEG 384 of 2018
| CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MARITIME, MINING AND ENERGY UNION |
First Applicant
| ROBERT BENKESSER |
Second Applicant
| PHILIP KENNEDY |
Third Applicant
And
| HANSSEN PTY LTD (ACN 058 600 427) |
First Respondent
| GERARDUS PETER HANSSEN |
Second Respondent
| DENBY JACKSON |
Third Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(As Corrected)
Introduction
This matter arose by initiating application filed on 16 July 2018. The First Applicant (‘CFMMEU’) is the employer of both the Second Applicant (‘Mr Benkesser’) and Third Applicant (‘Mr Kennedy’) (collectively, ‘the Applicants’).
The accompanying Statement of Claim filed by the Applicants on 16 July 2018 outlined the claim against the First, Second and Third Respondents (‘Hanssen Pty Ltd’, ‘Mr Hanssen’ and ‘Mr Jackson’, respectively) (collectively, ‘the Respondents’). In short, the claim was that, on 16 April 2018 and 19 April 2018, Mr Benkesser and Mr Kennedy – both of whom had a right to enter the Hanssen building premises per the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (‘the FW Act’) and the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) – were denied entry by Mr Hanssen and Mr Jackson. The Applicants sought declarations that the Respondents have breached the FW Act and sought penalties for those breaches.
The matter went through various stages of pleadings (the Respondents filed a defence on 7 September 2018 and an Amended defence on 5 December 2018), culminating, relevantly, in an Amended Statement of Claim filed by the Applicants on 6 September 2019. On the same day, the Respondents filed a Substituted Defence, which contained two paragraphs stating:
1. The first, second and third respondents (collectively the respondents) admit each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 to 59 (inclusive) of the Amended Statement of Claim dated 6 September 2019 (Amended Statement of Claim).
2. The respondents admit that the applicants are entitled to the relief sought in paragraphs (1) to (17) (inclusive) under the headings "Relief' and "Orders" in the Amended Statement of Claim.
(their emphasis)
The declarations that the parties agree to are:
(1) A declaration that Hanssen contravened s 501 of the FW Act in relation to the 16 April Hanssen-Benkesser Refusal.
(2) A declaration that Hanssen contravened s 501 of the FW Act in relation to the 16 April Hanssen-Kennedy Refusal.
(3) A declaration that Jackson contravened s 501 of the FW Act in relation to the 16 April Jackson-Benkesser Refusal.
(4) A declaration that Jackson contravened s 501 of the FW Act in relation to the 16 April Jackson-Kennedy Refusal.
(5) A declaration that Hanssen Pty Ltd contravened s 501 of the FW Act in relation to the 16 April Hanssen-Benkesser Refusal by reason of Hanssen’s conduct.
(6) A declaration that Hanssen Pty Ltd contravened s 501 of the FW Act in relation to the 16 April Hanssen-Kennedy Refusal by reason of Hanssen’s conduct.
(7) A declaration that Hanssen Pty Ltd contravened s 501 of the FW Act in relation to the 16 April Jackson-Benkesser Refusal by reason of Jackson’s conduct.
(8) A declaration that Hanssen Pty Ltd contravened s 501 of the FW Act in relation to the 16 April Jackson-Kennedy Refusal by reason of Jackson’s conduct.
(9) A declaration that Hanssen contravened s 501 of the FW Act in relation to the 19 April Hanssen-Benkesser Refusal.
(10) A declaration that Hanssen contravened s 501 of the FW Act in relation to the 19 April Hanssen-Kennedy Refusal.
(11) A declaration that Jackson contravened s 501 of the FW Act in relation to the 19 April Jackson-Benkesser Refusal.
(12) A declaration that Jackson contravened s 501 of the FW Act in relation to the 19 April Jackson-Kennedy Refusal.
(13) A declaration that Hanssen Pty Ltd contravened s 501 of the FW Act in relation to the 19 April Hanssen-Benkesser Refusal by reason of Hanssen’s conduct.
(14) A declaration that Hanssen Pty Ltd contravened s 501 of the FW Act in relation to the 19 April Hanssen-Kennedy Refusal by reason of Hanssen’s conduct.
(15) A declaration that Hanssen Pty Ltd contravened s 501 of the FW Act in relation to the 19 April Jackson-Benkesser Refusal by reason of Jackson’s conduct.
(16) A declaration that Hanssen Pty Ltd contravened s 501 of the FW Act in relation to the 19 April Jackson-Kennedy Refusal by reason of Jackson’s conduct.
The seventeenth paragraph is an order, and states:
(17) Orders under s 546(1) of the FW Act imposing penalties on Hanssen Pty Ltd, Hanssen and Jackson for each of its and his respective contraventions of s 501 of the FW Act.
The orders that Respondents did not agree to are:
(18) An order under s 546(3) of the FW Act that the penalties sought above be paid to the CFMMEU.
(19) Such further or other orders as the Court considers appropriate.
Given that the parties agree to these declarations, I shall make orders as such.
The Court is required to determine the quantum of the penalties for the First Respondent’s eight contraventions and the Second and Third Respondent’s four contraventions, and to whom the penalties should be paid to.
Background
A longer summary as to the providence of this litigation is provided by the Applicants’ submissions filed 11 September 2019:
(a) At about 2.40pm on 16 April 2018, Benkesser and Kennedy arrived at the Premises and spoke to Jackson. During that conversation, Benkesser and Kennedy described a number of matters that they could see that they considered were safety issues, showed their permits, and sought to enter the Premises under s 49I of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) (IR Act). Jackson denied Benkesser and Kennedy entry and told them to contact Hanssen.
(b) Jackson, Benkesser and Kennedy then had a short conversation with Hanssen over the phone. Hanssen denied Benkesser and Kennedy entry to the Premises. Jackson then told Benkesser and Kennedy to wait for Hanssen to arrive.
(c) At about 3.30pm, Hanssen arrived at the Premises. Hanssen had a conversation with Jackson, Benkesser and Kennedy during which he again denied Benkesser and Kennedy entry to the Premises. Jackson stood next to Hanssen and nodded at what he was saying during the conversation.
(d) At about 4.20pm, Benkesser and Kennedy left the Premises without having been granted entry.
(e) At about 11.30am on 19 April 2018, Benkesser and Kennedy arrived at the Premises. They made several attempts to contact Jackson and eventually spoke to him by videocall. During that conversation, Benkesser and Kennedy showed their permits, described a number of matters that they could see that they considered were safety issues, including the lack of exclusion zones around the lifting of concrete panels, and sought to enter the Premises under s 49I of the IR Act.
(f) Jackson informed Benkesser and Kennedy that they would need to speak to Hanssen. Benkesser and Kennedy then had a conversation with Hanssen by phone during which Hanssen informed Benkesser and Kennedy that they would have to wait until he had arrived at the Premises.
(g) At about 12.25pm, Hanssen arrived at the Premises and had a conversation with Benkesser and Kennedy. During that conversation, Hanssen denied Benkesser and Kennedy entry to the Premises. Jackson stood next to Hanssen and nodded at what he was saying.
(h) At about 12.40pm, Benkesser and Kennedy left the Premises without having been granted entry.
Orders sought
By a minute attached to the Amended Statement of Claim filed 6 September 2019, the Applicants sort orders that:
17. Pursuant to s 546(1) of the FW Act, the First Respondent shall pay a penalty in the sum of $176,400.
18. Pursuant to s 546(1) of the FW Act, the Second Respondent shall pay a penalty in the sum of $17,640.
19. Pursuant to s 546(1) of the FW Act, the Third Respondent shall pay a penalty in the sum of $15,120.
20. Pursuant to s 546(3)(b) of the FW Act, the Respondents shall pay the penalties set out in paragraphs 17 to 19 above to the First Applicant within 28 days.
21. There be no order as to costs.
The maximum penalty that could be ordered would be $504,000 for Hanssen Pty Ltd and $50,400 for both Mr Hanssen and Mr Jackson. The orders sought, then, represent 35% of the maximum for both Hanssen Pty Ltd and Mr Hanssen and 30% for Mr Jackson.
By oral application, Mr Hanssen said he thought penalties between $10,000 to $20,000 paid to the Princess Margaret Hospital was appropriate. Mr Hanssen stated he would rather pay the money to Princess Margaret Hospital than to the CFMMEU.
Submissions on penalties
The Applicants were represented by Mr Scaife. Mr Hanssen appeared in person, representing himself and his company. There was no appearance by or on behalf of Mr Jackson.
Applicants’ submissions
The Applicants recognise that any penalty should be proportionate to the gravity of the conduct while signalling the importance of adhering to the law.
The Applicants say that their proposed orders are justified for several reasons:
a)the actions were deliberate;
b)Mr Hanssen and Mr Jackson were aware of their legal obligations and knowingly broke the law;
c)Mr Jackson’s comments indicated the refusal of entry to CFMMEU staff was a deliberate policy;
d)Mr Hanssen and Mr Jackson’s intent was to refuse access to permit holders who were seeking to protect workers by investigating suspected breaches of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 (WA), in circumstances where there had been a worker fatality on a site occupied by Hanssen Pty Ltd;
e)there is a need for specific deterrence as the Respondents have previously been penalised for similar conduct:
i)in Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union & Ors v Hanssen Pty Ltd & Ors [2019] FCCA 1664, Hanssen Pty Ltd was fined $54,000, Mr Hanssen was fined $8,000 and Mr Jackson was fined $5,000; and
ii)in Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union & Ors v Hanssen Pty Ltd & Ors (PEG661/2017), Hanssen Pty Ltd was fined $37,800 and Mr Hanssen was fined $5,600.
It is also said that the fact the Respondents have made admissions should not mitigate the penalties, as the admissions ‘were merely an acceptance of the inevitable’.[1] The Applicants rely on the judgment of Stone and Buchannan JJ in Mornington Inn Pty Ltd v Jordan [2008] FCAFC 70 at [76]-[77] in support of this submission.
[1] Applicants’ submission, filed 11 September 2019, [28].
Further, the Applicants claim on what appears to be a public policy basis, that a harsher penalty is appropriate as:
Unions and permit holders are given important powers under the FW Act to enter workplaces for the purpose of representing their members and investigating suspected contraventions of the FW Act and other industrial laws. Conduct that deliberately seek to frustrate the lawful exercise of those powers undermines the purpose of Part 3-4 of the FW Act, and potentially expose workers to exploitation and avoidable safety risks that might otherwise be identified and remedied.[2]
[2] Applicants’ submission, filed 11 September 2019, [30].
Lastly, the CFMMEU seek any penalties to be paid to them. In support of this, the Applicants rely on the Full Court authority of Sayed v Construction, Forestry, Mining And Energy Union [2016] FCAFC 4 at [116] (‘Sayed’), where their Honours Tracey, Barker and Katzmann JJ state:
In this appeal, as Jessup J said of the case before him, the policy considerations of s 546(3) “speak loudly“ in the circumstances to justify the payment of the penalty imposed to the individual affected by the contravention who, under the authority of the FW Act, commenced and maintained this enforcement proceeding. If Mr Sayed had not pursued the action, it is unlikely that it would have been pursued. He took on the proceeding at obvious cost to himself.
As applied to this case, the Applicants at [28] (page 9) of their submissions say:
The Applicants have commenced and maintained this proceeding at obvious cost. They are the moving party that has taken it upon themselves to enforce the FW Act. In their absence, it is unlikely that the proceeding would have been pursued.
Respondents’ submissions
The Respondents did not file written submissions. Mr Hanssen, despite having had legal advice for the preparation of his filed documents, represented himself and the First and Third Respondents.
Mr Hanssen sought mitigation on the basis that he did not believe that the CFMMEU had suffered any loss in a financial sense; stating that:
But the penalty, of course, imposed, the money goes through the CFMEU, but we did not create – impose any financial disadvantage on the CFMEU at all because they were not affected financially. We were more affected by their attendance and the lot of – the lack of productivity on my side because of what they do than the other way around. I should be claiming from them stopping me working.
Mr Hanssen said he preferred to pay the fine to a charity of his choosing rather than pay a sum to the CFMMEU.
Consideration
The respondents relied upon the affidavits of Mr Hanssen sworn 28 May 2019 and Mr Jackson dated 27 May 2019.
Mr Hanssen’s affidavit deposes, in summary, to the following matters:
4. I have worked in the construction industry for 51 years.
5. Hanssen is a builder of high rise residential apartments and some offices.
6. I established Hanssen in 1992.
7. I am and always have been the sole director and shareholder of Hanssen.
8. Hanssen builds exclusively for the developer Finbar Ltd (Finbar).
9. Hanssen undertakes all aspects of the construction of the high rise, including off-site fabrication
of materials such as precast concrete walls and windows.
10. Hanssen generally has three to four construction projects ongoing at any one time.
Mr Hanssen also says he employs a variety of staff, including contractors, trainees and apprentices. He says he has had a long standing involvement with the CFMMEU and states that throughout his career, he has been bullied, intimidated, harassed, threatened and abused by CFMMEU officials.
A fatality occurred on a Hanssen building site in October 2016. Mr Jackson was Site Supervisor at that time and on that site. The fatality has been investigated by Worksafe and to date, no charges have been laid against Hanssen Pty Ltd or any of its staff or contractors.
Mr Hanssen sees the CFMMEU’s exercise of its right of entry as part of a campaign of harassment and intimidation against Hanssen Pty Ltd, and in particular against Mr Jackson. At [41] of his affidavit Mr Hanssen states ‘[o]nce the CFMEU campaign started, I was determined to get an apology from the CFMEU for their harassment of my company and workers’.
Mr Hanssen further states:
42. I told Denby more than once that if any CFMEU representative came to a Hanssen site he should not allow them on, but should tell them they would need to speak to me.
43. From May 2017 when the Vue project started to about May 2018 I would receive regular phone calls from the Vue Site, both from Denby and various CFMEU officials, during which I was told that the CFMEU officials who were there wanted to enter the site.
44. I cannot recall the details of every call.
45. I would usually ask the CFMEU officials to tell me what the complaint was and by whom.
46. I would usually tell them that they would not be allowed onto the site unless I received an apology for their campaign against Hanssen and its workers.
4 7. Sometimes I would ask the CFMEU officials to wait and I would go to the site to meet with them.
The affidavit Mr Jackson sets out his background in the construction industry and his employment with Hanssen Pty Ltd. Mr Jackson states that he no longer works in the construction industry, and is now working from mining company north-west Western Australia. At [24] and [25], Mr Jackson deposes that:
For several days in October 2016, I cannot recall the exact dates, several CFMEU officials stood outside the Concerto site and shouted at our workers, calling them also [sic] sort of names. They called them “murders” [sic]”scum” and yelled that “you have blood on your hands”.
I was really affected by the CFMEU’s conduct outside the Concerto site, and I still am.
The position of Mr Jackson is that of effectively following directions from Mr Hanssen Pty Ltd in relation to his dealings with the CFMMEU and whether to allow them onto the premises. The affidavit material filed on behalf of the Mr Hanssen and Mr Jackson indicates that there is a long-running animus as between Mr Hanssen and the CFMMEU and its officials.
I gained the impression from Mr Hanssen in the way that he presented to the Court that he was genuinely upset as he believed that his company, Mr Jackson and himself had been targeted as a result of a fatality occurring on a building site controlled by Hanssen Pty Ltd.
The above explanations provide a rationale for the conduct of the Respondents, but this does not operate to mitigate the effect of the contravention.
I take into account the non-exhaustive list of considerations that may be relevant to the imposition of a penalty in the industrial context as set out in Kelly v Fitzpatrick [2007] FCA 1080 (‘Fitzpatrick’).
Whilst there is no loss or damage of a financial kind suffered as a result of the contravention, the impact of the contraventions undermine the right of entry provisions of FW Act. The contraventions occur in a context where the First and Second Respondent has previously contravened similar industrial laws. The contraventions were a deliberate policy of Mr Hanssen and involves senior management.
The Respondents have admitted the contraventions there is no contrition. This is particularly important in the context where there have been previous findings for exactly the same conduct.
The Applicants refer to eight contraventions by Hanssen Pty Ltd. Whilst there are separate breaches, all contraventions which have been admitted arise from the same conduct from two separate events: the first which occurred on 16 April 2018 and second, on 19 April 2018. Each contravention identified must be considered and an appropriate penalty for it determined having regard to the relevant circumstances. However, to the extent that contraventions have common elements, this should be taken into account in considering what is an appropriate penalty in all the circumstances for each contravention, as the Respondents should not be penalised more than once for the same conduct (see Pearce v R [1998] HCA 57 at [40]).
The Court is also required to give consideration to the totality principal.
Considering the above, and the considerations in Fitzpatrick, I set penalties at:
a)$60,000, being a penalty of $7,500 per contravention (being eight) for Hanssen Pty Ltd.
b)$17,000, being a penalty of $4,250 per contravention (being 4) for Mr Hanssen; and
c)$12,000, being a penalty of $3,000 per contravention (being 4) for Mr Jackson.
I accept the submission of the Applicants that it is appropriate that the penalties be payable to the CFMMEU: Sayed at [116] and Milardovic v Vemco Services Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (No.2) [2016] FCA 244 at [40]-[45]. The CFMMEU are the party who have initiated the proceeding and they are entitled to bring the action in order to support the rights that they have as a union and the rights their officials have as permit holders under the FW Act. I also accept that the CFMMEU’s members have a right to benefit from their union representation, and this includes the CFMMEU’s right of entry process.
Conclusion
The penalties reflect the particular need for specific deterrence in this case in circumstances where the Respondents have been the subject of previous orders arising from similar circumstances. The penalties imposed on Mr Jackson reflect that he was following instructions from Mr Hanssen and further, that he is no longer working in the building industry.
The Court will make declarations reflecting the agreed contraventions set out in [4] and otherwise set penalties in the amount stipulated above.
I certify that the preceding forty-one (41) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge McNab
Associate:
Date: 29 November 2019
Corrections
Order 19 has been changed, with the word ‘First’ being replaced with ‘Third’, as shown in the following:
Pursuant to s 546(1) of the FW Act, the
FirstThird Respondent shall pay a penalty in the sum of $12,000.
0
6
4