Fair Work Ombudsman and Chia Tung Development Corp Ltd and Anor

The Fair Work Ombudsman (the Applicant) commenced proceedings against Chia Tung Development Corp Ltd (the First Respondent) and an individual (the Second Respondent) for alleged contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The dispute concerned the First Respondent's failure to comply with a Compliance Notice issued by an inspector, and the Second Respondent's alleged involvement in this contravention. The matter came before the Court on the Applicant's Default Judgment Application.

The Court was required to determine whether the Second Respondent was "involved" in the First Respondent's contravention of subsection 716(5) of the Fair Work Act, and whether the Applicant had established a case for relief on the facts pleaded in the Statement of Claim, given the default of both Respondents in the proceedings. A preliminary issue arose regarding whether the relevant employees were covered by Australian workplace laws, which the Applicant argued was a matter for a review application by the Respondents that had not been filed.

The Court reasoned that the Second Respondent was an intentional participant in the First Respondent's failure to comply with the Compliance Notice, and therefore was "involved" in the contravention within the meaning of subsection 550(2) of the Fair Work Act. The Court noted that subsection 716(5) is a civil remedy provision, and an inspector has standing to apply for orders under section 539. The Court found that the Applicant had made out a case for relief on the facts as pleaded, and that there were no discretionary reasons not to grant the relief sought. The Court also addressed the Respondents' failure to file a response, obtain legal representation, comply with court orders, or defend the proceedings with due diligence, concluding that both Respondents were in default.

The Court found that the First Respondent was in default under subrule 13.03A(2) of the Rules, having failed to satisfy the Applicant's claim, file a notice of address for service, file a response, or defend the proceedings with due diligence. Similarly, the Court found the Second Respondent to be in default for failing to direct compliance with court orders, comply with court orders, file a notice of address for service, file a response, or defend the proceedings with due diligence. Consequently, the Court found that the Applicant was entitled to the relief sought in its Default Judgment Application.