Fair Work Ombudsman v Dale
[2023] FedCFamC2G 183
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 2)
Fair Work Ombudsman v Dale [2023] FedCFamC2G 183
File number(s): MLG 975 of 2022 Judgment of: JUDGE J YOUNG Date of judgment: 9 March 2023 Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – FAIR WORK – penalties – parties by consent seek declarations of contravention of s.716(5) of Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – determination of penalties pursuant to s.546 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – involvement of Second Respondent in the contravention by the First Respondent pursuant to s.550 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – civil penalties to be paid by the first and second respondents pursuant to s.546 for conduct contravening s.716(5) of Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) –order made pursuant to s.545 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) requiring the First Respondent to comply with compliance notice – compensation under s.545 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) Legislation: Fair Work Act2009 (Cth), ss 539(2), 545(1), 546, 546(2)(a)
550(1),(2)(c), 687(1), 700(1), 701, 716(5).
Cleaning Services Award 2010 cls 12.5(a), 27.1 (a), 27.2(a)(b).
Cases cited: Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson [2022] HCA 13
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd (2016) 340 ALR 25
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson [2019] FCA 1654
Australian Opthalmic Supplies Pty Ltd v McAlary-Smith [2008] FCA 8
CFMMEU v ABCC [2018] FCAFC 97
Fair Work Ombudsman v Yogurberry World Square [2016] FCA 1290
Flight Centre Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (No 2) [2018] FCAFC 53
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25
Ponzio v B & P Caelli Constructions Pty Ltd [2007] FCAFC 65
Trade Practices Commission v CSR Ltd [1990] FCA 762
Wong v The Queen [2001] HCA 64
Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 63 Date of hearing: 17 February 2023 Solicitor for the Applicant: Ms Karakinos of HWL Ebsworth Lawyers Counsel for the First Respondent: Did not participate Counsel for the Second Respondent: Self-represented litigant ORDERS
MLG 975 of 2022 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: FAIR WORK OMBUDSMAN
Applicant
AND: STACEY DALE
First Respondent
SHANE DALE
Second Respondent
order made by:
JUDGE J YOUNG
DATE OF ORDER:
9 March 2023
THE COURT DECLARES BY CONSENT THAT:
A.The First Respondent contravened section 716(5) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the Act”), by failing to comply with the compliance notice dated 19 March 2020.
B.The Second Respondent was involved, within the meaning of section 550(2) of the Act, in the contravention of section 716(5) of the Act by the First Respondent.
AND THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to section 545(1) of the Act, the First Respondent take the steps that were required by the Compliance Notice within 28 days from the date of this order, by:
(a)identifying the amounts the First Respondent has paid to the Employee in respect of their entitlements as outlined in the Compliance Notice;
(b)calculating the amounts that should have been paid to the Employee in respect of their entitlements as outlined in the Compliance Notice;
(c)making payment to the Employee of the difference between the amounts referred to in paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) above;
(d)calculating and paying into the Employee's nominated superannuation fund any additional superannuation contributions as required by clause 23.2 of the Cleaning Services Award 2010 in respect of the amounts referred to in paragraph 1(c) above;
(e)preparing and producing to the Fair Work Ombudsman, a schedule outlining its calculations of the outstanding amounts and additional superannuation contributions referred to in paragraphs 1(c) and 1(d) above; and
(f)providing proof of payment of the outstanding amounts and additional superannuation contributions as required by paragraphs 1(c) and 1(d) above.
2.Pursuant to section 547(2) of the Act, the First Respondent pay to the Employee interest on the amounts owed to the Employee pursuant to paragraph 1(c) above within 28 days of the date of this order.
3.Pursuant to section 546(1) of the Act:
(a)The First Respondent pay a pecuniary penalty in the sum of $1,606.50 to the Commonwealth for the contravention declared at paragraph A above;
(b)The Second Respondent pay a pecuniary penalty in the sum of $2,142 to the Commonwealth for the contravention referred to in declared at paragraph B above.
4.Pursuant to section 546(3)(a) of the Act any pecuniary penalties ordered to be paid by the First and Second Respondents be paid to the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Commonwealth within 28 days from the date of this order.
5.The Fair Work Ombudsman have liberty to apply on seven days’ notice in the event that any of the preceding orders are not complied with.
6.Pursuant to rule 17.05(2)(a) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 the First Respondent may seek leave to set aside these orders within 28 days upon filing an application and affidavit setting out their failure to participate in the proceeding and why these orders should be set aside.
AND THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.The Respondents have not complied with order 5 of the orders made on 26 July 2022.
B.The First Respondent did not appear at the hearing of this matter on 17 February 2023.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE J YOUNG:
Introduction
Before the Court is an application for declarations and the imposition of penalties for contravention of the Fair Work Act2009 (Cth) (Act).
Factual context
The relevant facts are agreed as summarised in the following paragraphs.
The Applicant is the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO). The FWO is and was at all material times:
(a)a statutory appointee of the Commonwealth appointed by the Governor-General by written instrument pursuant to s 687(1) of the Act;
(b)a Fair Work Inspector pursuant to s 701 of the Act; and
(c)a person with standing to bring these proceedings and to apply for orders for contraventions of civil remedy provisions pursuant to s 539(2) of the Act.
The First Respondent, Ms Stacey Dale, is and was at all material times:
(a)a natural person capable of being sued;
(b)a sole trader who operated a cleaning services business trading as Daily Cleaning Services (ABN 84 291 180 309) located at 32 Hewitt Street, Ararat, in the State of Victoria; and
(c)a “national system employer" within the extended meaning of s 30N of the Act; and
(d)by reason of the matters pleaded in paragraphs 4(b) to 4(c) above, covered by the Act in respect of its employees.
The Second Respondent, Mr Shane Dale, is and was at all material times:
(a)a natural person capable of being sued;
(b)a person with the actual or apparent responsibility for the operation, management and control of Daily Cleaning Services; and
(c)a person with the actual or apparent responsibility for ensuring the First Respondent complied with their legal obligations under the Act.
In or around October 2019, the FWO commenced an investigation into the First Respondent’s compliance with the Act in respect of a former employee who had been employed by the First Respondent in the Business from 25 March 2019 until 11 August 2019 (Employee). The investigator, Fair Work Inspector Natalie Roberts (FWO Inspector) is, and was at all material times, appointed under s 700(1) of the Act.
On 19 March 2020, the FWO Inspector gave a compliance notice (Notice) to the First Respondent, having formed a reasonable belief that the First Respondent had contravened the following clauses of the Cleaning Services Award 2010 (Award):
(a)clause 12.5(a) - minimum wages;
(b)clause 27.1 (a) - shift work penalty rate;
(c)clause 27.2(a) - Saturday penalty rate;
(d)clause 27.2(b) - Sunday penalty rate; and (e) clause 27.3 - public holiday penalty rate.
The Notice required the First Respondent, by 23 April 2020, to take a range of actions to calculate and remedy the direct effects of the identified contraventions and keep a record of the same. The Notice also required the First Respondent, by 30 April 2020, to provide evidence to the FWO of compliance with the actions required by the Notice, including proof of payment to the Employee.
On 3 April 2020 the FWO Inspector telephoned the First Respondent in relation to the Notice and spoke with the Second Respondent. The Second Respondent confirmed the Notice had been received. The FWO Inspector’s file note of this conversation records that the Second Respondent said that “the Business had done the wrong thing” but that he was “keen to sort it out and start afresh.”
The First Respondent failed to comply with the Notice.
On 4 May 2020 the FWO Inspector sent an email to the Second Respondent in relation to the Compliance Notice, as it was overdue.
On 5 May 2020 the FWO Inspector telephoned the Second Respondent and the Second Respondent said that he was agreeable to making the required payment to the Employee.
On 8 May 2020 the FWO Inspector sent correspondence to the Second Respondent setting out that the Business had failed to comply with the Notice.
Between 18 May 2020 and 28 May 2020 the FWO Inspector and the Second Respondent exchanged a number of emails regarding the Employee’s outstanding entitlements and potential payment arrangements, including on 25 May 2020 the FWO Inspector notifying the Second Respondent that the First Respondent owed the Employee unpaid wages totalling at least $4,929.48.
On 28 May 2020 the Second Respondent proposed a payment plan of monthly instalments of $500 to the Employee, commencing on 5 July 2020. On 29 May 2020 the FWO Inspector confirmed by email with the Second Respondent that the payment plan was approved by the FWO and stating that failure to comply with the payment plan would result in court action being taken.
The payment plan was not complied with.
On 7 August 2020 the FWO Inspector informed the Second Respondent that given the lockdown in place in Victoria at the time, the Second Respondent could propose an alternative amount to be paid to the Employee each month.
On 12 August 2020 the FWO Inspector confirmed with the Second Respondent that a revised payment plan of $200 per month was agreeable to the FWO.
On behalf of the First Respondent, in the period between 29 July 2020 to 27 August 2020, the Second Respondent caused the following payments to be made to the Employee:
(a)on or around 29 July 2020, a payment of $500 was made to the Employee;
(b)on or around 1 October 2020, a payment of $200 was made to the Employee,
(c)on or around 11 November 2020, a payment of $200 was made to the Employee;
(d)on or around 10 December 2020, a payment of $200 was made to the Employee;
(e)on or around 5 January 2021, a payment of $200 was made to the Employee;
(f)on or around 10 February 2021, a payment of $200 was made to the Employee;
(g)on or around 11 March 2021, a payment of $200 was made to the Employee;
(h)on or around 31 March 2021, a payment of $200 was made to the Employee;
(i)on or around 16 August 2021, a payment of $100 was made to the Employee; and
(j)on or around 27 August 2021, a net payment of $100 was made to the Employee.
Accordingly, between 29 July 2020 and 27 August 2021 the First Respondent took partial steps to comply with the Notice and paid the sum of $2,100 to the Employee. The First Respondent has not calculated nor paid any additional superannuation payments to the Employee.
On 11 March 2022 the FWO sent to the Respondents by email a letter providing them with a final opportunity to comply with the Notice, in order to avoid litigation.
By letter dated 8 April 2022 solicitors for the FWO advised the Second Respondent that proceedings would be commenced if the Respondents did not fully comply with the Notice by 15 April 2022. They did not comply.
On 3 May 2022 proceedings were commenced by way of Application and a Statement of Claim.
On 26 August 2022 the parties filed a statement of agreed facts which, amongst other things, provided that:
the First Respondent admits that they contravened s. 716(5) of the Act by failing to comply with the Notice; and
the Second Respondent admits that they were involved within the meaning of s.550(2)(c) of the Act in the First Respondent’s contravention of s. 716(5) of the Act and pursuant to s. 550(1) of the Act is taken to have contravened s.716(5) of the Act.
In summary, the FWO filed the following materials on which it sought to rely:
(1)The Statement of Agreed acts filed 26 August 2023;
(2)The Affidavit of FWO Inspector Natalie Clare Roberts filed 15 September 2022; and
(3)The Affidavit of Renee Karakinos filed 15 September 2022.
The Respondents did not file any evidence or written submissions on penalty. The First Respondent did not attend the hearing. The Second Respondent was given an opportunity to provide oral submissions as to the appropriate penalty at the hearing.
The Contraventions
Section 716(5) and 550(1) of the Act are civil remedy provisions.
A fair work inspector may apply to this Court for orders in relation to contraventions of ss 716(5) and 550(1): s 539(2). The Court may make any order it considers appropriate if satisfied that a person has contravened a civil remedy provision: s 545(1) The Court may also make a pecuniary penalty order for such contraventions: s 546.
I am satisfied that the Statement of Claim filed in this matter and upon which the FWO relies, complies with the rules of pleading and properly pleads a cause of action that supports the grant of relief. In particular, I am satisfied that the facts alleged in the Statement of Claim and the admissions of the Respondents in the Statement of Agreed Facts establish that the First Respondent contravened s 716(5) by failing to comply with the Notice and that the Second Respondent was involved, pursuant to s 550(1), and within the meaning of s 550(2) of the Act, in the First Respondent’s contravention of s 716(5) by failing to comply with the Notice.
The Court has wide discretion to make declarations. Having regard to the admissions of the Respondents and in the particular circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that this is an appropriate case for declaratory relief.
Approach to the determination of penalties
The Court’s power to impose pecuniary penalties resides in s 546(1) of the Act.
Section 546(1) permits the Court to impose a pecuniary penalty “that the court considers is appropriate if the court is satisfied that the person has contravened a civil remedy provision.”
As I have earlier considered with regard to the admissions of the Respondents, that state of satisfaction exists. It falls to determine what level of penalty (if any) is appropriate as against the Respondents in light of the established contraventions.
The single contravention of s 716(5) by the First Respondent, being an individual, attracts a maximum penalty of $6,300 (calculated based on the penalty unit amount which applied at the time of the contravention). The Second Respondent also engaged in a single contravention by their involvement pursuant to s 550(1) and as an individual also attracts a maximum penalty of $6,300: ss 546(2)(a) and 539(2).
The FWO submitted a recommended penalty range of between $2,142 to $2,677.50 (40-50%) in respect of the First Respondent and $3,213 to $3,748.50 (60-70%) in relation to the Second Respondent. The FWO submitted that the differing penalty ranges were appropriate due to the following matters:
(1)The Second Respondent was the relevant contact during the FWO’s investigation and the person responsible for the management of the Employee and their entitlements, made assurances in respect of payments to be made to the Employee in accordance with the reasonable payment plan approved by the FWO, yet did not take steps to fully rectify the payments; and
(2)The First Respondent did not take an active role during the FWO’s investigation however the ABN of the Business is registered to them and they were ultimately responsible for ensuring the Business complied with its obligations.
Factors relevant to the Court’s discretion
As recently affirmed by the High Court of Australia, the purpose of a civil penalty under the regime provided by the Act is primarily, if not wholly, protective in the promotion of the public interest in compliance with the provisions of the Act and in (general and specific) deterrence of further contraventions.[1] An “appropriate” penalty being one that “strikes a reasonable balance between oppressive severity and the need for deterrence in a particular case”.[2]
[1] Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson [2022] HCA 13, [15]-[16] (Pattinson) citing the plurality in (the Agreed Penalties Case) and French J in Trade Practices Commission v CSR Ltd [1990] FCA 762.
[2] Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson [2022] HCA 13, [41].
The task of assessing what amount to impose involves the selection of a figure taking into account all factors relevant to the particular case.[3] The oft cited decision of French J in Trade Practices Commission v CSR Ltd[4] listed those factors relevant to an overall assessment of penalty, and were restated by the Full Court in CFMMEU v ABCC as follows:
..the nature, character and seriousness of the conduct; the loss and damage caused; the circumstances in which the conduct took place; the size of the contravener and its degree of power; the deliberateness of the conduct and the time over which it occurred; the degree of involvement of senior officials or management; the culture of the organisation as to compliance or contravention; and, any co-operation with the regulator and contrition.[5]
[3] Wong v The Queen [2001] HCA 64; (2001) 207 CLR 582, 611, [75] (Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ); Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357, 373-375, [37] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan JJ); Flight Centre Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (No 2) [2018] FCAFC 53; (2018) 260 FCR 68, 84, [55] (Allsop CJ, Davies and Wigney JJ); Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd (2016) 340 ALR 25, 36 [44] (Jagot, Yates and Bromwicgh JJ) as cited by Snaden J at [26] in Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson [2019] FCA 1654.
[4] [1990] FCA 762; [1991] ATPR 41-076 at [42].
[5] [2018] FCAFC 97 at [20].
This is not an exhaustive list. Further, each case warrants an “idiosyncratic” approach and a careful analysis of all relevant circumstances - as was stated in Australian Ophthalmic Supplies:
Penalties are not a matter of precedent. The choice of penalty must be dictated by the individual circumstances of a case, not by a line by line comparison with another case.[6]
[6] Australian Opthalmic Supplies Pty Ltd v McAlary-Smith [2008] FCA 8 at [12] (Graham J).
Nature of the conduct
The relevant conduct in the present case is the First Respondent’s failure to comply with the Notice and the Second Respondent’s involvement in that non-compliance, having been responsible to ensure that the First Respondent complied with its obligations under the Act at the relevant times. Compliance with the Notice required the First Respondent to prepare certain calculations and take specified remedial action by 23 April 2020 and provide reasonable proof of this to the FWO by 30 April 2020. The Respondents did not comply with the Notice, nor were all of those requirements subsequently met in full, despite the FWO agreeing to an initial payment plan and a further amended reduced payment plan. Indeed, at the time of hearing, being almost three years after the time for compliance with the Notice, the Notice has still not been fully complied with.
The part payments made following the date for compliance with the Notice, represent partial compliance but cannot, on any view, be considered compliance.
The contraventions occurred notwithstanding the FWO’s various efforts to: notify the Respondents of the Notice and the due date for compliance; allow the Respondents to enter into a payment plan; allow the Respondents to reduce the monthly instalment amounts under the payment plan; advise of the likely consequences of non-compliance including the risk of legal proceedings and the imposition of pecuniary penalties; advise of the FWO’s intention to commence legal proceedings if the Notice was not fully complied with by an extended date in April 2022.
The subject matter of the Notice was the underpayment of one former employee in the total amount of $4,929.48 for various contraventions of the Award. The total amount was at least partially rectified in the period 29 July 2020 to 27 August 2021, however, the Employee has still not received their full entitlements some three and a half years after ceasing employment.
In November 2019 the FWO issued to the Respondents a Letter of Caution. The FWO submits that this interaction is relevant to the imposition of penalties in this matter and is a presently relevant consideration. The FWO was not able to identify any authority for the proposition that the matters in a Letter of Caution, being matters in respect of which liability has not been judicially determined, ought properly be taken into consideration by the Court under this consideration, and I reject that submission. I consider, however, that the previous Letter of Caution may be relevant to deliberateness, which I address below.
Loss
In this case, the period in which the underpayments arose commenced almost 4 years ago. Further, some three and one half years after ceasing employment the Employee has still not received the totality of their unpaid wages, nor any superannuation on those unpaid wages. I consider the delay in the Employee receiving their lawful entitlements is a relevant loss flowing from the contravention. There is also the wastage of public resources in pursuit of this matter, including the commencement of this litigation. These are all factors to be taken into consideration of the penalty in the present case.
Deliberateness
There is no question that the Respondents were aware of the Notice and the Second Respondent engaged with the FWO in relation to it. The Notice itself made plain the consequences of failure to comply. Further, the Letter of Caution issued in 2019 contained information and resources available on the FWO’s website to assist the Respondents to understand their obligations and ensure compliance with them.
On the material before the Court, the decision of the Second Respondent not to ensure that the First Respondent complied with the Notice was deliberate. Furthermore, the conduct of the First Respondent, in the face of on-going and continued interaction with the FWO, in failing to satisfy the Notice was also deliberate.
Size of the business, management involvement and financial circumstances
At the time of final submissions, the Australian Business Register database (ABR) records that the Australian Business Number (ABN) associated with the Business remains active and is associated with the First Respondent. At the hearing, the Second Respondent submitted that the First Respondent was no longer trading. However, there is no evidence before the Court as to whether the First Respondent continues to trade or employs any employees.
By their own admission, the Second Respondent was the person with actual or apparent authority over the Business and responsible for ensuring the First Respondent’s compliance with the Notice and involved in the First Respondent’s contravention. The ABR records that the Second Respondent is associated with a plumbing services business (Plumbing Business), which has an active ABN. At the hearing, the Second Respondent submitted that the Plumbing Business no longer trades. However, there is also no evidence before the Court as to whether the Plumbing Business trades or employs any employees.
There is also no specific evidence before the Court as to the Respondents’ financial circumstances, however on a number of occasions during the investigation the Second Respondent told the FWO Inspector that the Business had no work or income due to lockdowns in Victoria. I accept that the Business was likely to have been impacted by COVID-19 restrictions in 2020 and 2021 in Victoria. However, the Respondents have not established any serious difficulty with paying a penalty if ordered to do so. In any event, the size and financial circumstances of an employer do not excuse an employer of its obligations to comply with workplace laws.
Corrective action, cooperation with the FWO and contrition
The First Respondent took corrective action between 29 July 2020 and 27 August 2021 by paying the employee $2,100 in partial compliance with the Notice and providing evidence of this to the FWO.
Further, the Respondents have spared some cost and complexity by working with the FWO to submit an agreed statement of facts and their admissions.
Additionally, at the hearing the Second Respondent conceded that “what was said [by the FWO] was true”. However, the Respondents are yet to address all required steps in the Notice and there is no specific evidence of contrition on behalf of the Respondents.
These are all matters I consider relevant and find, as recommended by the FWO, that a discount of 15% ought be applied to any penalty ordered. I see no basis upon which the discount applied to the First Respondent and the Second Respondent ought differ.
Compliance with minimum standards
A further and important consideration in this case is the need for compliance with the statutory framework. The statutory framework concerning compliance notices is an important mechanism for an inspector to deal with non-compliance with minimum entitlements in the Act as an alternative to commencing litigation. It also provides a means of early resolution and rectification without penalty.
The failure to comply with a statutory notice issued by the FWO is serious and such conduct ultimately undermines the Act’s enforcement framework and the safety net of entitlements it is designed to protect.
Deterrence
General deterrence must serve a purpose such that the penalty is not seen by others as just ‘the cost of doing business.’[7] In order to be useful as a general deterrent, a penalty ‘should be of a kind that it would be likely to act as a deterrent in preventing similar contraventions by likeminded persons or organisations’.[8]
[7]Fair Work Ombudsman v Yogurberry World Square [2016] FCA 1290, [27]
[8]Ponzio v B & P Caelli Constructions Pty Ltd [2007] FCAFC 65, [93] (Lander J).
In my view, there is a need for general deterrence in this matter, to emphasise the importance of an effective compliance framework and at a sufficient level to impress upon other employers the importance of complying with the legal obligations owed to their employees.
I also consider this is a case where there is a need for specific deterrence. Although there is no evidence as to whether the First Respondent is currently trading or employs any employees, the ABN associated with the Business is still registered and the Respondents have demonstrated a disregard for their obligations under the Act by failing to comply with the Notice. Further, the Second Respondent continues to be involved in the Business and is associated with another business, giving rise to, at least, the potential risk that they may be involved in the management of employees and the determination of their entitlements. I have also had regard to the material before the Court as to the Respondents’ conduct in this matter, including that there has still not been full compliance with the Notice some three years after it was provided and the employee has still not been paid his full entitlements, and which lacks depth in terms of contrition or evidence of how future contraventions will be avoided.
The appropriate penalty
When all of the above factors are considered, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to impose a pecuniary penalty on the First Respondent for its contravention of s 716(5) and on the Second Respondent for their involvement in that contravention pursuant to s 550(1) of the Act.
Weighing all of the above factors, I consider it is appropriate to fix the penalty at 30% of the maximum for the First Respondent and 40% for the Second Respondent, less a 15% reduction on account of the corrective action, and cooperation, in the amounts of $1,606.50 and $2,142 respectively.
In my view, this is a proportionate response to the respective contraventions of ss 716(5) and 550(1) and strikes a reasonable balance between oppressive severity and the need for both general and specific deterrence in this particular case.
The FWO sought an order that the penalty be payable to the Commonwealth of Australia within 28 days of these orders.
For the above reasons, I will make declarations and orders accordingly.
I certify that the preceding sixty-three (63) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge J Young. Associate:
Dated: 9 March 2023
0
10
0