FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Fair Work Ombudsman v Harris Group Co Pty Ltd [2025] FedCFamC2G 574
File number(s): MLG 1138 of 2023 Judgment of: JUDGE J YOUNG Date of judgment: 23 April 2025 Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – Applicant seeks declaration of contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – contravention of civil remedy provisions – penalties sought – consideration of factors relevant to penalty – where respondents cooperated by signing a statement of agreed facts – where underpayment has not been rectified – where conduct demonstrates deliberate disregard for obligations under the Act – penalties ordered pursuant to s 546(1). Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 12, 14, 90(2), 539(2), 545(1), 546, 547(2), 550(1), 550(2), 687(1), 700(1), 701, 716(1)
716(5), 793(1)
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 13.06(1)(e)
Road Transport and Distribution Award 2020 cll 10.1, 21.1, 23.1, 24.4, sch B
Cases cited: Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson [2022] HCA 13
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson [2019] FCA 1654
Australian Ophthalmic Supplies Pty Ltd v McAlary-Smith [2008] FCA 8
Fair Work Ombudsman v Yogurberry World Square [2016] FCA 1290
Flight Centre Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (No 2) [2018] FCAFC 53; (2018) 260 FCR 68
Jordan v Mornington Inn Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1384
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357
Ponzio v B & P Caelli Constructions Pty Ltd [2007] FCAFC 65
The Commonwealth v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate (2015) 258 CLR 482
Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 53 Date of hearing: 11 February 2025 Place: Melbourne Solicitor for the Applicant: Ms Stolzenhain of the Fair Work Ombudsman Solicitor for the Respondents: Did not participate ORDERS
MLG 1138 of 2023 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: FAIR WORK OMBUDSMAN
Applicant
AND: HARRIS GROUP PTY LTD
First Respondent
MATTHEW HARRIS
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE J YOUNG
DATE OF ORDER:
23 APRIL 2025
THE COURT DECLARES THAT:
1.The First Respondent contravened s 716(5) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) by failing to comply with the Compliance Notice issued to the First Respondent on 21 April 2022.
2.The Second Respondent was involved, within the meaning of s 550(2) of the FW Act, in the First Respondent’s contravention of s 716(5) of the FW Act declared at Order 1 herein and is taken to have contravened that provision.
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
3.Pursuant to s 545(1) of the FW Act, the First Respondent take the steps that were required by the Compliance Notice within 28 days of this Order by:
(a)calculating and paying…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Fair Work Ombudsman v Harris Group Co Pty Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2025] FedCFamC2G 574
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the First Respondent's size and financial circumstances, noting that these factors do not absolve the company of its obligations under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The First Respondent's lack of corrective action and failure to rectify the underpayment, despite having been provided with assistance from the FWO, were significant in the court's assessment. Additionally, the lack of an apology or evidence of contrition further influenced the penalty decision. The court emphasised the importance of compliance with the statutory framework, highlighting that failure to comply with notices issued by the FWO undermines the enforcement of the Act. The need for general deterrence, to ensure that penalties serve as a meaningful deterrent to others, was also highlighted. The court concluded that there was a clear need for both general and specific deterrence in this case, given the industry's history of disputes and the demonstrated disregard for legal obligations by the First Respondent.
After careful consideration of the relevant factors, the court ordered that the First Respondent pay a penalty of $15,000 and the Second Respondent pay a penalty of $10,000. The penalties were determined to be sufficient to achieve the necessary deterrence without causing undue hardship to the respondents. The court's decision underscored the importance of compliance with workplace laws and the role of penalties in enforcing the Fair Work Act. The orders were designed to ensure that the respondents understood the seriousness of their breaches and the importance of adhering to their legal obligations in the future.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: JUDGE J
In any event, the size and financial circumstances of an employer do not excuse an employer of its obligations to comply with workplace laws: Jordan v Mornington Inn Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1384 at [99]. Corrective action, cooperation with the FWO and contrition As set out above, the underpayment has not been calculated or rectified by the Respondents. The Respondents have spared some cost and complexity by working with the FWO to submit two statements of agreed facts where full admissions are made. The Respondents have not provided an apology or any evidence indicating contrition and compliance with the Notice remains outstanding. This is despite the FWO providing the Respondents with assistance on more than one occasion to undertake the calculations required by the Notice. Compliance with the minimum standards An 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”: Fair Work Ombudsman v Yogurberry World Square [2016] FCA 1290, [27]. 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’: 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. Further, the FWO Industry Profile for the period July 2021 to June 2024 provides that the Road Freight Transport Industry has a moderate dispute rate and is the third highest industry in total dispute count involving the FWO for the 2022-2023 period. I also consider this is a case where there is a need for specific deterrence. Although there is no evidence of whether the First Respondent currently employs any employees, it is still a registered business and the Respondents have demonstrated a disregard for their obligations under the Act by failing to comply with the Notice, despite being provided with assistance from the FWO and numerous opportunities to take the necessary action to comply. Further, the Second Respondent remains the current director and company secretary of the First Respondent.THE APPROPRIATE PENALTY