Fair Work Ombudsman v ACN 146 435 118 Pty Ltd

The Fair Work Ombudsman (Applicant) commenced proceedings against ACN 146 435 118 Pty Ltd (First Respondent) and Catherine Paino-Povey (Second Respondent), a director of the company. The Applicant sought declarations and orders alleging numerous contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and the Cleaning Services Award 2010 by the First Respondent, and that the Second Respondent was knowingly concerned in these contraventions. The Applicant applied for default judgment against both respondents due to their failure to comply with court rules regarding the filing and service of a defence. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia before Judge Lucev.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the respondents had contravened the Fair Work Act and the Modern Award as alleged by the Applicant, and whether default judgment should be entered against them. Specifically, the court had to determine if the respondents' response, which consisted of a reproduction of the Statement of Claim with handwritten annotations of agreement or disagreement, constituted a valid defence. The court also considered the implications of the respondents' failure to file and serve proper documentation and their legal representation's inability to provide instructions.

The court found that the respondents, and their legal representatives, had been duly notified of the default judgment hearing. Given the lack of a proper defence and the respondents' failure to comply with court orders, the court determined that default judgment was appropriate. The court accepted the factual background as presented by the Applicant, which detailed various contraventions including failures to pay minimum rates of pay, overtime, annual leave entitlements, and to provide payslips and records, as well as unlawful deductions. The court applied Rule 13.03B(2) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) to enter judgment against the respondents.

Consequently, the court ordered judgment against the First and Second Respondents in favour of the Applicant. The First Respondent was ordered to pay compensation to six employees for underpayments totalling $21,596.48, plus interest and superannuation contributions. The liability hearing was vacated, and the matter was adjourned for further hearing concerning the Applicant's claim for penalties against the respondents, with directions for the filing and service of submissions and evidence.