FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Fair Work Ombudsman v Eagle trading as Eagletech Engineering [2024] FedCFamC2G 1123
ORDERS
SYG 1542 of 2024 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: FAIR WORK OMBUDSMAN
Applicant
AND: CHRISTOPHER JUSTIN EAGLE TRADING AS EAGLETECH ENGINEERING
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE LAING
DATE OF ORDER:
5 NOVEMBER 2024
THE COURT DECLARES THAT:
1.The Respondent contravened s 716(5) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) by failing to comply with the compliance notice given to the Respondent on 31 August 2023 (Compliance Notice).
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
2.Pursuant to s 546(1) of the FW Act, the Respondent pay a pecuniary penalty of $3,756 to the Commonwealth, for the contravention of s 716(5) of the FW Act by failing to comply with the Compliance Notice, within 28 days of this order.
3.The Applicant has liberty to apply in the…
Continue reading Fair Work Ombudsman v Eagle trading as Eagletech Engineering
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Fair Work Ombudsman v Eagle trading as Eagletech Engineering [2024] FedCFamC2G 1123
- Case
- [2024] FedCFamC2G 1123
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central issue before the Court was the determination of an appropriate penalty for Mr Eagle's contraventions. The Court was tasked with considering the seriousness of the breaches, Mr Eagle's history of compliance, and the deterrent effect required to uphold the integrity of the Fair Work Act. The Fair Work Ombudsman argued for a penalty reflecting the gravity of the breaches, while Mr Eagle contended for a lower penalty, citing his otherwise good compliance record and the absence of significant financial benefit from the contraventions.
The Court considered the principles outlined in section 716(6) of the Fair Work Act, which include the need to deter contraventions and promote compliance. The Court noted that while Mr Eagle had a history of compliance, the contraventions in question were serious, involving multiple instances of underpaying workers. The Court also took into account the absence of significant financial gain to Mr Eagle from the breaches, which influenced the penalty downwards. After weighing these factors, the Court determined that a penalty of $3,756 was appropriate.
In conclusion, the Court found that Mr Eagle was liable for the contraventions and ordered him to pay a pecuniary penalty of $3,756. The Court also granted the Fair Work Ombudsman's request for associated orders. The decision underscores the importance of compliance with the Fair Work Act and the Court's role in ensuring that penalties are proportionate and serve as a deterrent against future breaches.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.