FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| COZADINOS v DEMPSTER & ANOR | [2009] FMCA 265 |
| INDUSTRIAL LAW – Application for civil penalty – breach of applicable provisions – breaches admitted – agreed penalty – considerations as to penalty. |
| Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) ss.789, 790, 807(1), 807(2), 809 |
| FSU v Commonwealth Bank (2005) 224 ALR 467 CPSU v Telstra (2001) 108 IR 228 Australian Ophthalmic Supplies Pty Ltd v McAlary-Smith [2008] FCAFC 8 Kelly v Fitzpatrick (2007) 166 1R 14 CFMEU v Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd (No.2) (1999) 94 IR 231 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v FSUA [2007] FCAFC 18 Standen v Feehan (No.2) [2008] FCA 1574 Rojas v Esselte Australia Pty Ltd (No.2) [2008] FCA 1585 Wells v Locorno Management Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1034 Alfred v Lanscar [2007] 167 IR 320 Minister for Industry, Tourism & Resources v Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 72 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v IPM Operations Maintenance Loy Yang Pty Ltd (No.2) [2007] FCA 11 NW Frozen Foods Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (1996) 71 FCR 285 |
| Applicant: | MICHELLE COZADINOS |
| First Respondent: | MICHAEL DEMPSTER |
| Second Respondent: | RICHARD HENRY |
| File Number: | MLG 971 of 2008 |
| Judgment of: | O’Sullivan FM |
| Hearing date: | 27 March 2009 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 27 March 2009 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Delivered on: | 27 March 2009 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr Jacobs |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Clayton Ultz |
| Counsel for the First and Second Respondents: | Mr Sayer |
| Solicitors for the First and Second Respondents: | Slater & Gordon |
ORDERS
The Court orders that:
It is declared that the First Respondent breached section 789 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (“the WR Act”) in respect of Mr Alan Gray and Mr Peter Mayne for the reasons set out in the Statement of Agreed Facts as filed with the Court.
Pursuant to section 807(1) of the WR Act, a penalty of $1,000 is imposed on the First Respondent for his breach of section 789 of the WR Act, such penalty to be paid into Consolidated Revenue within 21 days of the date of this Order.
It is declared that the Second Respondent breached section 790 of the WR Act in respect of Mr Adam Lucas for the reasons set out in the Statement of Agreed Facts as filed with the Court.
Pursuant to section 807(1) of the WR Act, a penalty of $1,000 is imposed on the Second Respondent for his breach of section 790 of the WR Act, such penalty to be paid into Consolidated Revenue within 21 days of the date of this Order.
The proceeding is otherwise dismissed.
There be no order for costs.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MLG 971 of 2008
| MICHELLE COZADINOS |
Applicant
And
| MICHAEL DEMPSTER |
First Respondent
| RICHARD HENRY |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from transcript)
By application filed 8 August 2008 Michelle Cozadinos (“the applicant”) sought declarations and the imposition of penalties against Michael Dempster (“the first…
Continue reading Cozadinos v Dempster
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Cozadinos v Dempster [2009] FMCA 265
- Case
- [2009] FMCA 265
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the provisions of the WR Act and the specific breaches alleged. It was established through the Statement of Agreed Facts that the first respondent had indeed breached section 789 of the WR Act regarding Mr Gray and Mr Mayne, and the second respondent had breached section 790 of the WR Act concerning Mr Lucas. Given these findings, the court imposed penalties on the respondents as per section 807(1) of the WR Act, mandating each to pay a penalty of $1,000. The court also made declarations regarding the breaches and dismissed the proceeding in all other respects. Notably, no costs were awarded to either party.
In summary, the court declared that the first respondent was in breach of section 789 of the WR Act for Mr Gray and Mr Mayne, and the second respondent was in breach of section 790 of the WR Act for Mr Lucas. Each respondent was ordered to pay a penalty of $1,000, with no further orders for costs. The proceedings were dismissed in all other respects.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court orders that:
1.
It is declared that the First Respondent breached section 789 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (“the WR Act”) in respect of Mr Alan Gray and Mr Peter Mayne for the reasons set out in the Statement of Agreed Facts as filed with the Court.
2.
Pursuant to section 807(1) of the WR Act, a penalty of $1,000 is imposed on the First Respondent for his breach of section 789 of the WR Act, such penalty to be paid into Consolidated Revenue within 21 days of the date of this Order.
3.
It is declared that the Second Respondent breached section 790 of the WR Act in respect of Mr Adam Lucas for the reasons set out in the Statement of Agreed Facts as filed with the Court.
4.
Pursuant to section 807(1) of the WR Act, a penalty of $1,000 is imposed on the Second Respondent for his breach of section 790 of the WR Act, such penalty to be paid into Consolidated Revenue within 21 days of the date of this Order.
5.
The proceeding is otherwise dismissed.
6.
There be no order for costs.
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.