Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Supernova Contractors Pty Ltd ACN 099 426 552
Case
•
[2012] FMCA 935
•9 October 2012
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
DIRECTOR, FAIR WORK BUILDING INDUSTRY INSPECTORATE v SUPERNOVA CONTRACTORS PTY LTD ACN 099 426 552 & ANOR
[2012] FMCA 935
[2012] FMCA 935
9 October 2012
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter before the Federal Court was between the Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate, and Supernova Contractors Pty Ltd, with a second respondent, an individual director of the company. The dispute arose from allegations of contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically in relation to s.357(1) of the Act. The Director alleged that the company and its director failed to ensure that the company was not involved in work or activities that contravened the Act, specifically by not providing employees with the required minimum pay rates.
The legal issues before the Court included whether the respondents had contravened the specific section of the Fair Work Act, and if so, whether penalties were applicable. The Court needed to determine the correct quantum of any penalty and the appropriate recipient of the penalty payments. Additionally, the Court had to address the procedural issue of amending the title of the applicant in the proceedings.
In delivering its judgment, the Court found that both respondents had indeed contravened s.357(1) of the Fair Work Act. The Court held that the company and its director failed to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance with the Act. The Court considered the seriousness of the contraventions and imposed penalties on both respondents. The Court determined that the company's penalty was $9,900 and the director's penalty was $1,980, reflecting the different capacities in which they were involved. The Court ordered that the penalties be paid to the Commonwealth within 28 days of the order. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs of the proceedings.
The legal issues before the Court included whether the respondents had contravened the specific section of the Fair Work Act, and if so, whether penalties were applicable. The Court needed to determine the correct quantum of any penalty and the appropriate recipient of the penalty payments. Additionally, the Court had to address the procedural issue of amending the title of the applicant in the proceedings.
In delivering its judgment, the Court found that both respondents had indeed contravened s.357(1) of the Fair Work Act. The Court held that the company and its director failed to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance with the Act. The Court considered the seriousness of the contraventions and imposed penalties on both respondents. The Court determined that the company's penalty was $9,900 and the director's penalty was $1,980, reflecting the different capacities in which they were involved. The Court ordered that the penalties be paid to the Commonwealth within 28 days of the order. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs of the proceedings.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Employment & Labour Law
Legal Concepts
-
Declaratory Relief
-
Civil Penalty
-
Costs
-
Compliance
-
Penalty
-
Breach of Contract
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Fair Work Ombudsman v Grandcity (GW) Travel and Tour Pty Ltd [2015] FCCA 1759
Cases Citing This Decision
6
Fair Work Ombudsman v Grandcity (GW) Travel and Tour Pty Ltd
[2015] FCCA 1759
The Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Linkhill Pty Ltd (No.9)
[2014] FCCA 1124
Fair Work Ombudsman v Bedington
[2012] FMCA 1133
Cases Cited
14
Statutory Material Cited
1
Carr v CEPU & Anor
[2007] FMCA 1526
Mason v Harrington Corporation Pty Ltd
[2007] FMCA 7
Fair Work Ombudsman v Centennial Financial Services Pty Ltd
[2011] FMCA 459