Director Of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Baulderstone Pty Ltd and Ors (No.2)

In *Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Baulderstone Pty Ltd and Ors (No.2)*, Judge Manousaridis of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered the imposition of pecuniary penalties following earlier findings of contravention. The proceedings involved the Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate as the applicant, and Baulderstone Pty Ltd, Mr Razlog, and Ms Kidman as respondents. The court had previously determined that Baulderstone, Mr Razlog, and Ms Kidman had contravened section 346 of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth). This subsequent judgment focused on whether pecuniary penalties should be imposed and, if so, in what amounts, with maximum penalties stipulated for each respondent.

The central legal issues before the court were the assessment and quantum of pecuniary penalties to be imposed on Baulderstone, Mr Razlog, and Ms Kidman for their contraventions of section 346 of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth). The court was required to determine appropriate penalty amounts, considering the statutory maximums of $33,000 for Baulderstone and $6,600 for each of Mr Razlog and Ms Kidman.

In reaching its decision, the court applied established principles for assessing pecuniary penalties under the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth). The court noted that penalties serve multiple purposes, including punishment or retribution, which requires the penalty to be proportionate to the gravity of the contravening conduct and accord with prevailing standards of punishment. Another key purpose is deterrence, encompassing both personal deterrence (assessing the risk of re-offending) and general deterrence (acting as a deterrent to others). The court emphasised that while penalties should reflect the seriousness of the offending to deter others, they should not be so severe as to crush the contravener or make them a scapegoat. In some circumstances, general deterrence may be the paramount factor.