Fair Work Ombudsman v Pure Telecom Pty Ltd
[2024] FedCFamC2G 664
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Fair Work Ombudsman v Pure Telecom Pty Ltd [2024] FedCFamC2G 664
File number(s): SYG 311 of 2023 Judgment of: JUDGE CAMERON Date of judgment: 25 July 2024 Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – breaches of civil remedy provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – declarations of breach – imposition of pecuniary penalties – relevant considerations.
INDUSTRIAL LAW – Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) - Compliance notice – contravention – whether compensation for contravention available.
Legislation: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s.4AA
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss. 44, 45, 90, 539, 545, 546, 550, 716, 717
Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2024 (Cth) item 155 of sch.1
Cases cited: ACE Insurance Ltd v Trifunovski (No 2) (2012) 215 IR 206
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (2018) 262 CLR 157
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson (2022) 274 CLR 450
Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Australian Building and Construction Commissioner (2018) 264 FCR 155
Dafallah v Fair Work Commission (2014) 225 FCR 559
Fair Work Ombudsman v Back Your Cause Pty Ltd, file BRG178/2023
Fair Work Ombudsman v Carers Portland Inc [2023] FedCFamC2G 620
Fair Work Ombudsman v Chapman [2023] FedCFamC2G 1018
Fair Work Ombudsman v Cobra Security Services Pty Ltd [2024] FedCFamC2G 336
Fair Work Ombudsman v Precise Fencing and Landscaping Pty Ltd [2023] FedCFamC2G 1235
Fair Work Ombudsman v Preach By The Beach Pty Ltd, file SYG936/2022, orders made 14 October 2022
Fair Work Ombudsman v Sails Waterfront Bar & Grill Pty Ltd (No 2) (2021) 360 FLR 421
Fair Work Ombudsman v Taing [2024] FedCFamC2G 270
Leggett v Hawkesbury Race Club Limited (No 4) (2022) 293 FCR 608
Division: Fair Work Number of paragraphs: 75 Date of hearing: 18 June 2024 Place: Sydney Counsel for the Applicant: Ms V. Bulut Solicitor for the Applicant: Office of the Fair Work Ombudsman Solicitor for the First and Second Respondents: Digital Age Lawyers ORDERS
SYG 311 of 2023 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: FAIR WORK OMBUDSMAN
Applicant
AND: PURE TELECOM PTY LTD (ACN 136 874 372)
First Respondent
STEVEN JOSEPH WOODS
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE CAMERON
DATE OF ORDER:
25 JULY 2024
THE COURT DECLARES THAT:
1.The first respondent contravened s.716(5) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) by failing to comply with a compliance notice issued on 24 May 2022.
2.The second respondent was involved, within the meaning of s.550(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), in the first respondent’s contravention of s.716(5) of that Act.
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The first respondent
(a)pay Howard Yang the amount of $22,148.84 (Wage Underpayments) less any amounts paid since 18 June 2024, in amounts of at least those set out in Schedule A to these orders, such that no amount is outstanding by 27 February 2026;
(b)calculate and pay any additional superannuation contributions required by clause 17.2 of the Professional Employees Award 2020 (Superannuation) to Howard Yang's chosen superannuation fund; and
(c)provide reasonable evidence to the applicant that it has paid the Wage Underpayments and the Superannuation.
2.Should the first respondent not pay the Wage Underpayments in full to Howard Yang by 27 February 2026, the second respondent pay any amount unpaid to the applicant.
3.Should the first respondent not pay the Superannuation in full to Howard Yang's chosen superannuation fund by 27 February 2026, the second respondent pay any amount unpaid to the applicant.
4.Within 28 days of completing payment of the Wage Underpayments or 26 March 2026, whichever is earlier:
(a)the first respondent pay a pecuniary penalty of $7,000 for its contravention of s.716(5) of the FW Act, declared above; and
(b)the second respondent pay a pecuniary penalty of $1,400 for his involvement in the first respondent's contravention of s.716(5) of the FW Act, declared above.
5.The penalties be paid to the Commonwealth.
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 Cameron
INTRODUCTION
The Fair Work Ombudsman (Ombudsman) brought this proceeding under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) alleging that the first respondent, Pure Telecom Pty Ltd (Pure Telecom), had contravened a compliance notice dated 24 May 2022 (Compliance Notice). The second respondent, Stephen Woods, is, and at all relevant times was, Pure Telecom’s sole director and secretary and was a person with authority over it. He was also a person responsible for ensuring Pure Telecom’s compliance with its legal obligations under the FW Act. The Ombudsman alleged that Mr Woods was an accessory to Pure Telecom’s alleged contravention and so had also contravened the Compliance Notice.
RELEVANT LEGISLATION
The FW Act relevantly provides:
716 Compliance notices
Application of this section
(1) This section applies if an inspector reasonably believes that a person has contravened one or more of the following:
(a) a provision of the National Employment Standards;
(b) a term of a modern award;
(c) a term of an enterprise agreement;
(d) a term of a workplace determination;
(e) a term of a national minimum wage order;
(f) a term of an equal remuneration order;
(g) a provision of Part 6-4C (which deals with the Coronavirus economic response);
(h) a jobkeeper enabling direction (within the meaning of Part 6-4C);
(i) a provision of an agreement authorised by Part 6-4C.
Giving a notice
(2) The inspector may, except as provided by subsection (4), give the person a notice requiring the person to do either or both of the following within such reasonable time as is specified in the notice:
(a) take specified action to remedy the direct effects of the contravention referred to in subsection (1);
(b) produce reasonable evidence of the person's compliance with the notice.
(3) The notice must also:
...
(c) set out brief details of the contravention; and
(d) explain that a failure to comply with the notice may contravene a civil remedy provision; …
…
Person must not fail to comply with notice
(5) A person must not fail to comply with a notice given under this section.
(6) Subsection (5) does not apply if the person has a reasonable excuse.
550 Involvement in contravention treated in same way as actual contravention
(1) A person who is involved in a contravention of a civil remedy provision is taken to have contravened that provision.
(2) A person is involved in a contravention of a civil remedy provision if, and only if, the person:
(a) has aided, abetted, counselled or procured the contravention; or
(b) has induced the contravention, whether by threats or promises or otherwise; or
(c) has been in any way, by act or omission, directly or indirectly, knowingly concerned in or party to the contravention; or
(d) has conspired with others to effect the contravention.
...
Pursuant to ss.539(2) and 546(2) of the FW Act, the maximum pecuniary penalty that can be imposed on an individual for a contravention of s.716(5) of the FW Act is 30 penalty units per contravention. The maximum pecuniary penalty that can be imposed for contravention by a body corporate of the same civil penalty provisions is five times the maximum penalty units applicable to an individual: s.546(2) of the FW Act. At the time of the contraventions alleged by the Ombudsman a penalty unit was worth $222: s.4AA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). Consequently the maximum pecuniary penalty that might be imposed on Pure Telecom is $33,300 and the maximum pecuniary penalty that might be imposed on Mr Woods is $6,660.
ALLEGATIONS AND ADMISSIONS
The Ombudsman alleged that Pure Telecom owed its former employee, Mr Yang, amounts under the FW Act and the Professional Employees Award 2010 and the Professional Employees Award 2020 (together, the Award) in respect of minimum wages, accrued untaken annual leave and annual leave loading. The Ombudsman further alleged that the Compliance Notice had required Pure Telecom to calculate what it owed Mr Yang, to make necessary payments consequent upon those calculations and to demonstrate to her that those calculations and payments had been made.
The Ombudsman alleged that, in contravention of s.716(5) of the FW Act, Pure Telecom had failed to comply with the requirements of the Compliance Notice. She also alleged that Mr Woods was involved, within the meaning of s.550(2) of the FW Act, in Pure Telecom’s contraventions.
The respondents admitted in their defence that Fair Work Inspector (FWI) Pace had formed a reasonable belief, under section 716(1) of the FW Act that, in respect of Mr Yang’s employment, Pure Telecom had contravened:
(a)s.90(2) of the FW Act in respect of its failure to pay out Mr Yang’s accrued untaken annual leave entitlements; and
(b)Award terms concerning payment of full-time minimum wages and annual leave loading entitlements (together, the Underpayment Contraventions).
The respondents also admitted Mr Woods’s involvement, within the meaning of s.550 of the FW Act, in those contraventions.
Compliance Notice
It was also admitted that on 24 May 2022, FWI Pace had given Pure Telecom the Compliance Notice which had required it to take the following actions (together, the Specified Actions) by 25 October 2022:
(a)identify the amount Pure Telecom paid to Mr Yang during the Contravention Period in respect of full-time minimum wages;
(b)calculate the amount Pure Telecom should have paid to Mr Yang for full-time minimum wages;
(c)pay Mr Yang the difference between the amount paid to him for full-time minimum wages and the amount he should have been paid;
(d)identify the number of hours of annual leave Mr Yang had accrued when his employment ended;
(e)calculate the amount Pure Telecom should have paid to Mr Yang in respect of untaken accrued annual leave on termination of his employment;
(f)pay Mr Yang the difference between the amount paid to him for untaken accrued annual leave on the termination of his employment and the amount that he should have been paid;
(g)make a record of the amounts referred to in subparagraphs (i) to (vii);
(h)calculate and pay any additional superannuation contributions required by cl.17.2 of the 2020 Award to Mr Yang’s chosen superannuation fund; and
(i)provide reasonable evidence to the Ombudsman of its compliance with the Compliance Notice by 1 November 2022 by supplying:
(i)a schedule of the amounts resulting from the Specified Actions; and
(ii)proof of full payment of the amounts identified by the calculations which the Compliance Notice required be made.
Pure Telecom
The respondents admitted that Pure Telecom had:
(a)failed on or before 25 October 2022 to take the actions set out in the Compliance Notice;
(b)failed to produce to the Ombudsman by 1 November 2022 evidence of its compliance; and
(c)contravened s.716(5) of the FW Act (Compliance Notice Contravention) upon failing to comply with the Compliance Notice.
Mr Woods
The respondents admitted that Mr Woods:
(a)had been involved within the meaning of s.550(2) of the FW Act in the Compliance Notice Contravention; and
(b)is taken, pursuant to s.550(1) of the FW Act, to have also contravened s.716(5) FW Act.
Rectification
The respondents also admitted that on 15 November 2022 Pure Telecom had provided the Ombudsman’s office with its calculation of what it owed Mr Yang but the calculation had not been correct. The correct figure was $46,804.77 (Rectification Amount), after giving credit for $1,750 that had been paid to Mr Yang.
In addition to making those admissions in their defence, the respondents noted that:
a.the period of underpayment occurred during the COVID-19 outbreak when the travel required for work was limited;
b.according to an installation [sic] agreement between the Applicant and Respondents, the Respondents have paid back the outstanding annual leave on termination entitlements.
RELIEF SOUGHT
The Ombudsman sought:
(a)declarations that the respondents had contravened s.716(5) of the FW Act;
(b)orders pursuant to s.545(1) of the FW Act that Pure Telecom remedy the effects of that contravention within 28 days by:
(i)paying the Rectification Amount to the Ombudsman;
(ii)calculating and paying to Mr Yang’s superannuation fund additional superannuation contributions owed to him under the Awards;
(iii)paying the Ombudsman interest on the Rectification Amount; and
(c)the imposition of pecuniary penalties on the respondents pursuant to s.546(1) of the FW Act.
I note that the Ombudsman has indicated that since the commencement of this proceeding, the respondents have made further payments to Mr Yang in accordance with payment plans such that the amount owing to Mr Yang as at the trial was $22,148.84.
In their response filed on 19 April 2024 the respondents consented to the following relief being granted:
1.A declaration that the First Respondent contravened section 716(5) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) by failing to comply with the Compliance Notice issued on 24 May 2022.
2.A declaration that the Second Respondent was involved, within the meaning of section 550(2) of the FW Act, in the contravention by the First Respondent of section 716(5) of the FW Act, declared above.
3. Pursuant to section 546(1) of the FW Act:
i.The First Respondent pay a pecuniary penalty to the Commonwealth for its contravention of section 716(5) of the FW Act, declared above;
ii.The Second Respondent pay a pecuniary penalty to the Commonwealth for his involvement in the First Respondent’s contravention of section 716(5) of the FW Act, declared above.
The respondents also proposed their own orders concerning payment of the balance of what was owed to Mr Yang.
At the hearing of this application the respondents accepted the Ombudsman’s contention that the Court had power to order compensation for a contravention of s.716(5) of the FW Act but argued that the Court should in the exercise of discretion, not do so.
FINDING OF CONTRAVENTION
In light of the admissions made in the defence, I find that the allegations of contravention of s.716(5) are made out and am satisfied that it is appropriate to make the declarations sought.
REMAINING ISSUES
Contravention of s.716(5) having been found, attention turns to the questions of penalties and compensation.
APPLICANT’S EVIDENCE
Leigh Pace
FWI Pace was a Fair Work Inspector appointed under the FW Act. In his affidavit affirmed on 16 January 2024, FWI Pace deposed that:
(a)on 24 May 2022 he sent both Pure Telecom and Mr Woods the Compliance Notice which required Pure Telecom to:
(i)calculate Mr Yang’s entitlements under the Award and the FW Act in respect of his minimum wage, annual leave on termination and annual leave loading entitlements;
(ii)“rectify” those amounts by 25 October 2022; and
(iii)provide evidence of those calculations and rectifications by 1 November 2022;
(b)on 8 June 2022 he received a telephone call from Mr Woods who sought further information concerning undertaking compliance with the notice;
(c)on 13 October 2022 Mr Woods sent an email to FWI Pace stating he was unable to meet the requirements of the Compliance Notice as he could not pay the required amount in full by the due date. The email read in part:
Hi Leigh,
Thankyou for the follow up
I am working through the calls emails and messages
Etc. after returning from children’s term leave commitmentsI have been working very closely with my accountant Ronald Alexander
Of Platinum One Accountants for most of this year in stabilising the businessThis important matter has been receiving the attention it deserves.
However, and unfortunately despite my best efforts – at this time I am unable to meet the compliance notice requested payment in full
By the due dateI have advice pending from other financial professionals and support staff However this is not likely to change my ability to satisfy this demand on time
I would be pleased if you could advise on what the best and worst case scenarios might look like
Given my inability to pay in full and on time
…(d)on 2 November 2022 FWI Pace sent an email to Mr Woods attaching a Failure to Comply Notice. The email read in part:
Please note that if the Employer does not provide a reasonable excuse for its failure to comply with the Compliance Notice, the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) may commence legal action against the Employer, and any persons involved in its failure to comply with the Compliance Notice, without further notice.
Failure to comply with a compliance notice is a contravention under section 716(5) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). A court may order a maximum penalty of $6,660 in respect of an individual or $33,300 in respect of a body corporate for each failure to comply with a compliance notice.
If legal action is taken against the Employer, in addition to seeking civil penalties, FWO may seek to recover any outstanding monies which the Compliance Notice required the Employer to pay.
…
(e)on 15 November 2022 FWI Pace received correspondence from Pure Telecom’s external accountant, Mr Alexander, setting out the company’s calculation of the amounts it considered were owed to Mr Yang;
(f)FWI Pace concluded that Pure Telecom’s calculations had incorrectly reduced the proposed amount said to be owed to Mr Yang by setting off his travel allowance payments;
(g)in correspondence sent on 30 November 2022, FWI Pace informed Mr Alexander and Mr Woods that their calculations were incorrect, provided them with the correct figures, the total being $48,460.94, and advised them that he would allow Pure Telecom further time to make payment arrangements for the amounts outstanding and would defer until 7 December 2022 his decision concerning whether to commence legal proceedings;
(h)Pure Telecom did not make any additional payments to Mr Yang prior to 7 December 2022;
(i)on 13 January 2023 Ms Clemens, a solicitor employed by the Ombudsman, sent the respondents letters entitled “Litigation to commence without further notice”. The letter warned that the Ombudsman intended to commence enforcement proceedings and that:
Corrective action is a matter taken into account by the Courts when considering any penalty. Evidence of rectification of the contraventions and corrective action to ensure compliance with workplace laws is a matter that the FWO would ask the Court to consider as a factor in mitigation of any penalty.
…
(j)On 2 February 2023 Ms Clemens had a telephone conversation with Mr Woods concerning the conduct and potential outcomes of any legal proceeding commenced against him.
(k)Ms Clemens sent an email to Mr Woods on 9 February 2023 which read in part:
I note you have not provided me with any receipts for any payments to Mr Yang following our meeting last week. As I informed you during that meeting, the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) will take any payments into consideration.
The FWO intends to commence proceedings very shortly because, based on Pure Telecom Pty Ltd (Company)’s continuing failure to make any payments required by the compliance notice issued to it on 24 May 2022 (Compliance Notice), which have been outstanding since at least 1 November 2022, it is the FWO’s view there is no other way to ensure the Company takes the steps that were required by the Compliance Notice.
(l)between 10 February and 28 March 2023 Pure Telecom made 7 payments to Mr Yang totalling $3,750;
(m)as of 22 February 2023, Pure Telecom had not paid the full amount required by the Compliance Notice nor provided a proposed payment plan. The Ombudsman commenced this proceeding on 23 February 2023;
(n)on 14 September 2023, following mediation, the parties entered into a payment plan in respect of Mr Yang’s unpaid annual leave entitlements. A copy of that agreement was annexed to his affidavit; and
(o)the parties did not, however, reach agreement on the amount owed to Mr Yang in respect of minimum wages.
In his affidavit affirmed on 17 May 2024 FWI Pace deposed that:
(a)he had given Pure Telecom 6 months to comply with the Compliance Notice when normally only 28 days would have been allowed;
(b)as at 17 May 2024, Pure Telecom had paid Mr Yang a total amount of $14,296 by way of rectification but still owed Mr Yang over $23,000;
(c)on 16 May 2024 parties entered into an agreed payment plan in respect of Mr Yang’s unpaid minimum wage entitlements to be paid in weekly instalment amounts of $250 until completion by 26 February 2026. A copy of that agreement was annexed to his affidavit; and
(d)on 1 May 2024 he conducted a company search for Pure Telecom, at which time Mr Woods was the sole director and secretary of Pure Telecom and had been since 19 September 2014.
RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE
Steven Woods
The respondents filed an affidavit of Mr Woods affirmed on 31 May 2024.
Matters of compliance and rectification
Mr Woods deposed that he:
(a)had received the Compliance Notice on 24 May 2022 but had been unable to finalise his review of Pure Telecom’s financial records and of the records of underpayment until 25 February 2023 although in the meantime he had undertaken an analysis of amounts owed to Mr Yang that the Ombudsman considered incorrect;
(b)had advised the Ombudsman on 13 October 2022 that he would be unable to attend to the underpayments outlined in the Compliance Notice by the due dates. Mr Woods deposed that he had been attending to family commitments and had been focusing on stabilising the business subsequently to the COVID-19 pandemic;
(c)had received professional advice at the time which gave no indication that Mr Yang’s payment requirements were not being met;
(d)had been confused, “in relation to responding” to the Compliance Notice, regarding the Award applicable to Mr Yang’s employment, the separation between Mr Yang’s minimum entitlements and travel expenses, and by the nature of the alleged contravention;
(e)had paid Mr Yang $750 on 10 February 2023 and $500 each on 16 and 22 February 2023, and on 6, 9, 16 and 28 March 2023; and
(f)had made all payments required by the payment plans of September 2023 and May 2024.
Impact of COVID-19 on business
Mr Woods also deposed that much of the period during which the underpayments occurred had been during the COVID-19 pandemic and that the Compliance Notice was served at a time when the business was trying to get back on its feet. He deposed that due to COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns, restrictions and related economic downturn, Pure Telecom faced significant challenges, including a significant decrease in work, and that these negatively impacted its revenues. His evidence was that in May 2020 he borrowed $100,000 in order to maintain Mr Yang’s full time employment, Mr Yang being the sole employee of the company at that time.
Mr Woods deposed that despite the company’s decreased revenue and “Jobkeeper” payments only covering half of Mr Yang’s salary, he had ensured that Mr Yang was paid his full travel allowance and his salary.Pure Telecom continued to be in a difficult financial position, having suffered a monthly revenue reduction of about $45,000, and had liabilities of about $350,000.
Medical and personal issues
Mr Woods deposed that in March 2021 he suffered a heart attack requiring surgery and had six month’s recovery, which coincided with the end of Mr Yang’s employment and made it significantly more difficult to run the business. Mr Woods had suffered from mental health issues because of the stress of running the company and the aftermath of COVID-19 pandemic. He deposed that he had had further medical issues in 2023 and had had surgery from which he continued to recover.
Mr Woods deposed he was the sole provider for his two children and their mother.
Mr Woods deposed that these issues caused him difficulty in obtaining appropriate legal representation and adequately responding to the Ombudsman’s requirements. His evidence was that he did not receive advice and representation until early 2024.
CONSIDERATION
Relevant legislation
At the time this proceeding was commenced, the FW Act relevantly provided:
545 Orders that can be made by particular courts
Federal Court and Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)
(1) The Federal Court or the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) may make any order the court considers appropriate if the court is satisfied that a person has contravened, or proposes to contravene, a civil remedy provision.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), orders the Federal Court or Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) may make include the following:
(a) an order granting an injunction, or interim injunction, to prevent, stop or remedy the effects of a contravention;
(b) an order awarding compensation for loss that a person has suffered because of the contravention;
(c) an order for reinstatement of a person.
….
Time limit for orders in relation to underpayments
(5) A court must not make an order under this section in relation to an underpayment that relates to a period that is more than 6 years before the proceedings concerned commenced.
…
546 Pecuniary penalty orders
(1)The Federal Court, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) or an eligible State or Territory court may, on application, order a person to pay a pecuniary penalty that the court considers is appropriate if the court is satisfied that the person has contravened a civil remedy provision.
…
Penalties
Relevant principles
The purpose of civil penalties of the sort available under the FW Act is deterrence, not compensation: Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (2018) 262 CLR 157 at 195 [116]; Dafallah v Fair Work Commission (2014) 225 FCR 559 at 593 [140]. In Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Australian Building and Construction Commissioner (2018) 264 FCR 155, the Full Court of the Federal Court said:
It is unnecessary to engage in any extended discussion of principle. Of particular significance is the recognition that deterrence (general and specific) is the principal and indeed only object of the imposition of a penalty — to put a price on contravention that is sufficiently high to deter repetition by the contravener and others who might be tempted to contravene the Act: French J in Trade Practices Commission v CSR Ltd [1990] FCA 762; [1991] ATPR 41-076 at 52,152, cited by the plurality in Commonwealth v Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate (Civil Penalties Case) [2015] HCA 46; (2015) 258 CLR 482 at [55]. ... (at 167 [19])
When determining the appropriate penalty to impose, regard should be had to all of the circumstances of the case, guided by the various discretionary considerations discussed in authorities such as Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson (2022) 274 CLR 450 at 460-461 [18]-[19], in order to arrive at a single result that is an instinctive synthesis of those various factors.
Discussion
The nature and extent of the contravening conduct
The Compliance Notice had required Pure Telecom to:
(a)calculate what it owed to Mr Yang;
(b)calculate the superannuation contributions applicable to the amounts determined in (a);
(c)pay Mr Yang what it owed him;
(d)pay Mr Yang’s superannuation fund the superannuation contributions that cl.17.2 of the Award required be contributed in relation to the payment referred to in (c); and then
(e)demonstrate to the Ombudsman that it had taken those steps.
Pure Telecom failed to comply with the requirements of the Compliance Notice served on it by the Ombudsman by failing, by 25 October 2022, to make a correct calculation of what it owed Mr Yang by way of remuneration and superannuation contributions, by failing to make good those underpayments and by failing to demonstrate to the Ombudsman by 1 November 2022 that it had taken those steps. Mr Woods was involved in that contravention.
The amount of loss or damage caused
On the assumption that the Ombudsman could use a Compliance Notice to require Pure Telecom to perform correct calculations and to make payments based on those calculations, the relevant loss is the amount outstanding on the last day when Pure Telecom could comply with the Compliance Notice, 1 November 2022, namely $48,554.77. The evidence indicates that Mr Yang’s annual salary was $55,000. It is apparent that the underpayments were significant when compared with Mr Yang’s salary.
The circumstances in which the conduct took place
The respondents failed to comply timeously with the Compliance Notice. The following chronology, drawn from the Ombudsman’s written submissions, sets events in context:
(a) Mr Yang’s employment with the Company ended on 23 July 2021.
(b) FWI Pace’s investigation indicates that the Respondents were on notice of Mr Yang’s outstanding entitlements, … at least since January 2022.
(c) The Compliance Notice was issued on 24 May 2022, and provided the Company until 1 November 2022 to comply with it ….
(d) FWI Pace communicated with and offered assistance to Mr Woods during the time for compliance with the Compliance Notice.
(e) The Company did not take any of the steps required by the Compliance Notice by the due date of 1 November 2022.
(f) Some two weeks after FWI Pace sent Mr Woods an email attaching a “Failure to comply with a Compliance Notice” letter, on 15 November 2022, Mr Alexander, the Company’s accountant, sent calculations which showed the Company owed Mr Yang more than $20,000.
(g) The Company did not make any payments to Mr Yang until 10 February 2023, which was:
(i) after FWI Pace had referred the matter for legal action;
(ii) after Mr Woods had spoken directly with one of the Applicant’s lawyers;
(iii) more than a year and a half after Mr Yang’s employment with the Company had ceased.
(h) The Company then made some payments, on 10, 16 and 22 February 2023, totalling $1,750, but did not indicate a timeframe within which it would rectify its underpayments to Mr Yang.
(i) The Applicant commenced these proceedings on 22 February 2023.
(j) The parties participated in Registrar-led mediation in August-September 2023.
(k) The parties entered into a partial payment plan, only with respect to the NES contravention in the Compliance Notice for annual leave on termination entitlements (ALT Instalment Plan), on 14 September 2023.
(l) … the Respondents filed a Defence on 19 April 2024, in which they admitted the contraventions alleged 14 months earlier.
(m) Also on 19 April 2024, the Respondents filed a Response. In that Response, they sought orders for payment of an “Underpayment Amount”, but those orders were not sought with a firm timeframe, rather, by reference to “within a period agreed by the Parties”.
(n) On 7 May 2024, the Company completed the ALT Instalment Plan payments to Mr Yang.
(o) …
(p) On 17 May 2024, the Company provided a signed copy of a further payment plan, to pay Mr Yang $23,398.84, in instalments of not less than $250 per week, due to be completed by 26 February 2026, with respect to the remaining rectification for the minimum wage Award contravention required by the Compliance Notice (MWE Instalment Plan).
(q) As of the date of these submissions, the Applicant considers the Company owes Mr Yang $23,398.84 with respect to the minimum wage Award contravention in the Compliance Notice.
The deliberateness of the contravention and the period over which it extended
The Ombudsman has submitted that Pure Telecom deliberately contravened s.716(5) of the FW Act in that:
(i) it was aware of the Compliance Notice during the period for compliance;
(ii) it was able to provide calculations with respect to the Compliance Notice because it did provide those calculations, two weeks after the period for compliance;
(iii) it was able to make at least some payments to Mr Yang during the period for compliance, because it offered to do so during FWI Pace’s investigation, and did make some payments after its contravention of section 716(5) of the FW Act, but only after the Applicant indicated she was bringing these proceedings;
(iv) it was able to make substantial total payments to Mr Yang, under the ALT Instalment Plan but did not do so until after the Applicant commenced these proceedings and the parties participated in Registrar-led mediation; and
(v) it has agreed to pay the final outstanding $23,398.84 under the MWE Instalment Plan.
Those submissions are accurate but incomplete. On 7 November 2022, following the passing of the deadlines, Pure Telecom’s accountants wrote to the Ombudsman to advise that they had been engaged, apparently belatedly, to provide a calculation of what was owed to Mr Yang. They also said:
There has been a number of mitigating circumstances in which has prevented my client in providing all information at this stage including
- Marital home breakdown
- Declining health and heart related issues of the principal.
- Movement in abode on more than 1 occasion
- Financial viability as a result of the above.
It must be accepted that the failure to comply with the notice was intentional, although I accept that there were some extenuating circumstances.
Whether the company has a corporate culture conducive to compliance with the Act, as evidenced by educational programs and disciplinary or other corrective measures in response to an acknowledged contravention
The evidence suggests that Mr Woods has been having a hard time of things since his heart attack three years ago. However, it is not clear on the evidence how those circumstances affected his response, or lack of it, to the Compliance Notice’s deadlines. Nor is there evidence of the steps Pure Telecom took during Mr Yang’s employment or subsequent to it that demonstrated substantive efforts to understand correctly the obligations it owed Mr Yang or of the steps, if any, that were taken to act on the Compliance Notice’s requirements before its deadlines expired.
Whether the company has shown a disposition to co-operate with the authorities responsible for the enforcement of the Act in relation to the contravention
Pure Telecom’s co-operation with the Ombudsman appears to have been intermittent and the medical evidence that has been led by Mr Woods provides little insight into that intermittency. However, it is clear that Pure Telecom has been making regular payments in reduction of its obligations to Mr Yang and has done so having reached agreement with the Ombudsman on payment plans. Although those actions have required significant prodding by the Ombudsman, including, I infer, by the commencement of this proceeding, no serious opposition has been mounted by either of the respondents. Those actions have significantly reduced the scope of this proceeding, a matter to which proper regard should be had. To recognise the respondents’ overall co-operative attitude, I consider it appropriate to apply a discount of 15% to the penalties to be imposed.
Whether there had been similar previous conduct by the respondent
The evidence did not suggest that either of the respondents had previously contravened the FW Act in any respect.
Whether the party committing the breach had exhibited contrition
No evidence of contrition was led although in the case of a body corporate, arguably the only meaningful manifestation of contrition is a change of behaviour: ACE Insurance Ltd v Trifunovski (No 2) (2012) 215 IR 206 at 228-229 [113]-[114]. That has not been practically possible in this case as Pure Telecom has no employees other than Mr Woods but the parties’ discussions over, and agreement on, the sums due to Mr Yang and Pure Telecom’s consistent instalment payments demonstrate some belated willingness to act in accordance the Compliance Notice.
The need for specific and general deterrence
In the setting of penalties in this case, sums for both specific and general deterrence should be considered as Pure Telecom is still in business and may appoint additional employees in the future. The system of Compliance Notices is a welcome innovation but its value is undermined if employment market participants do not act in accordance with such notices. The Court should, by the penalties it imposes, discourage the respondents from repeating their contravening conduct and others from committing similar contraventions in the future.
Penalties imposed
I appreciate that Pure Telecom is not in a strong financial position and note that the Ombudsman has suggested that the payment of any penalties be postponed until the present instalment plan for unpaid wage and related superannuation entitlements has been fully executed and the agreed debts discharged. However, no detailed financial information has been supplied which would suggest that likely penalties would be crushing.
I find that Pure Telecom should pay a penalty of $7,000 for its breach of s.716(5) of the FW Act.
I find that Mr Woods should pay a penalty of $1,400 for his breach as an accessory of s.716(5) of the FW Act.
Compensation
As recorded earlier, s.545(1) of the FW Act provides that the Court:
may make any order the court considers appropriate if the court is satisfied that a person has contravened, or proposes to contravene, a civil remedy provision.
and that, amongst other orders, it may make:
an order awarding compensation for loss that a person has suffered because of the contravention.
The Ombudsman contended that the Court may, under s.545(1) of the FW Act, order compensation reflective of the sums that should have been paid if a contravened compliance notice had instead been obeyed. She said in her written submissions:
The Applicant submits that Mr Yang’s circumstances are of the type intended to be relieved by orders for compensation under section 545(2)(b) of the FW Act.
As also recorded earlier, the respondents agreed that the Court has such power but submitted that, as a matter of discretion, would not exercise it.
Cases supportive of the power to order compensation
In support of her submission, the Ombudsman referred to the following cases in this Court where compensation was ordered in respect of contraventions of compliance notices:
(a)Fair Work Ombudsman v Precise Fencing and Landscaping Pty Ltd [2023] FedCFamC2G 1235;
(b)Fair Work Ombudsman v Preach By The Beach Pty Ltd, file SYG936/2022, orders made 14 October 2022;
(c)Fair Work Ombudsman v Chapman [2023] FedCFamC2G 1018; and
(d)Fair Work Ombudsman v Back Your Cause Pty Ltd, file BRG178/2023, orders made 7 August 2023.
However, all those cases involved interlocutory judgments at listings at which the respondents did not appear and all but Preach by the Beach was preceded by an application in a proceeding seeking default or summary judgment. Whether the Court had power to order compensation for failure to obey compliance notices was not an issue that was discussed in the three of those cases where reasons for the compensation orders were published.
Reference was not made to Fair Work Ombudsman v Sails Waterfront Bar & Grill Pty Ltd (No 2) (2021) 360 FLR 421 where the Court considered whether it has power under s.545 of the FW Act to make an order that, in effect, compels a party to comply with the requirements of a compliance notice. It was concluded in that case that the making of such an order was not founded on an assumption that the giving of a compliance notice conclusively determined that its recipient had contravened an instrument particularised in s.716(1) of the FW Act. Instead, it would:
be premised on the Compliance Notice being valid, which in turn would be premised on the inspector who gave it having held a reasonable belief (at 426 [14])
and that given that the recipient of the compliance notice in that case remained:
liable to comply with the Compliance Notice, it is within the scope of s 545(1) and (2) of the FW Act for the Court to make an order in the nature of a mandatory injunction requiring [the recipient] to do that which the Compliance Notice requires [it] to do. (at 426 [15])
Cases not supportive of the power to order compensation
The Ombudsman also cited three cases in this Court in which it was held that the Court did not have power to order compensation for contravention of a compliance notice:
(a)Fair Work Ombudsman v Carers Portland Inc [2023] FedCFamC2G 620;
(b)Fair Work Ombudsman v Taing [2024] FedCFamC2G 270; and
(c)Fair Work Ombudsman v Cobra Security Services Pty Ltd [2024] FedCFamC2G 336.
The compliance notice in the Carers Portland case had required, similarly to this matter, that the employer calculate what was owed to the employee in question, pay the employee that amount, make associated superannuation contributions and report back to the Ombudsman.
In the course of considering the relief sought by the Ombudsman in that case, reference was made to Dafallah v Fair Work Commission where Mortimer J had said:
One of the principal tasks, if compensation is to be awarded, is to ensure that there is the appropriate causal connection between the contravention and the loss claimed: Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association v International Aviation Service Assistance Pty Ltd (2011) 193 FCR 526 at [423] per Barker J. (at 596 [159])
After citing that passage, Judge Blake held that:
… The contravention in this case is a contravention of section 716(5) of the Act. That is, the failure of the Respondents to comply with the Compliance Notice issued under section 716(1) of the Act (which Notice was itself based only on the reasonable belief of the Inspector that there had been a contravention of the Award and the NES). The contravention before the Court is not a finding that the Respondents have breached the Award or the NES. There is no causal connection between the contravention of the civil penalty provision at issue in this case, and the compensation claimed. (at [45])
Referring to the various steps that had been required by the compliance notice in that case, his Honour commented that:
The curious position therefore advanced by the Applicant, is that I should make an order to the effect that the First Respondent pay a specific amount required by the Compliance Notice, when the Compliance Notice did not specify such an amount.
… The Compliance Notice is issued on the reasonable belief of an inspector, not a finding of contravention of the relevant award or NES. A person responding to the Compliance Notice with the information at its disposal may come to the view after [performing the required calculations] that, for a variety of reasons, an employee has been properly and lawfully paid what they are owed. In that case, no payment as required by step (d) would appear to be necessary. (at [48], [49])
His Honour concluded that:
… It is not appropriate to order compensation equivalent to alleged breaches of an award or the NES where the nature of the proceeding, and its conduct means there is no requirement to prove the underlying contraventions. (at [51])
His Honour further explained his reasons as follows:
If the Applicant elects to commence proceedings for a contravention of subsection 716(5) of the Act (as is the case here), it gains the advantage of certain features pertinent to this cause of action. One feature is that a Compliance Notice may be issued on the basis that an inspector ‘reasonably believes that a person has contravened’ a provision of, among other things, the NES, award or enterprise agreement. An inspector does not need to be satisfied that a contravention of the NES, an award, or an enterprise agreement has occurred. Another feature is that proof of the underlying breaches of an award, enterprise agreement or the NES is not required to succeed in an application under section 716(5) of the Act. Alternatively to the above, the Applicant can commence proceedings alleging breach of an award, an enterprise agreement or the NES. In such cases, it is incumbent on the Applicant to commence proceedings under section 44, 45 or section 50 of the Act, and prove the actual breach of the relevant instrument or the NES.
The Act expressly sets out a pathway for pursuing contraventions of an award, an enterprise agreement or the NES. It would undermine the integrity of these provisions of the Act if, effectively, compensation could be obtained for contraventions of awards, enterprise agreements or the NES in a proceeding commenced under section 716(5) of the Act, without having to prove the contraventions. The legislature could not have intended such a result. (at [55], [56])
Similar concerns regarding the use to which compliance notices might be put were expressed in Fair Work Ombudsman v Taing and also in Fair Work Ombudsman v Cobra Security Services Pty Ltd, where it was said:
The provisions of the compliance notice scheme do not deem the reasonable belief of the inspector to be evidence of the truth of the facts asserted. The provisions do not create a statutory presumption about the legal correctness of the inspector’s reasonable belief subject to the employer proving otherwise (see eg s 361). I do not accept the Ombudsman’s submission that such a presumption arises in the absence of an employer seeking a review of the notice under s 717. (at [160])
With great respect to the learned judges who decided those cases, I cannot agree with them.
Discussion
For the reasons that follow I find that the Court has power to order compensation for the contravention of the Compliance Notice. Further, as a matter of discretion, given the history of this matter in which the co-operation of the respondents has been halting, it is appropriate in order to reinforce the agreed timetable for remaining payments that there be a compensation order that reflects that agreement.
Presumed contravention of industrial instrument
The legitimacy of a contravention notice depends on an inspector (Inspector), in this case FWI Pace, holding a reasonable belief that a particular person (Person), in this case Pure Telecom, has contravened one of the instruments particularised in s.716(1) of the FW Act. Once that condition precedent has been satisfied, and subject to exceptions that are not presently relevant, the Inspector may issue the Person with a compliance notice requiring them to:
take specified action to remedy the direct effects of the contravention
that the Inspector reasonably believes has occurred. It is true that there are other mechanisms available to the Ombudsman to enforce compliance with obligations under the instruments particularised in s.716(1) of the FW Act but the compliance notice system was plainly designed to provide an alternative to litigation alleging contravention of, for instance, ss.44 or 45 of the FW Act, which respectively concern contraventions of the National Employment Standards and of modern awards The Explanatory Memorandum to the Fair Work Bill 2008 stated:
2673. Clause 716 sets out a mechanism for an inspector to issue a compliance notice. This provides inspectors with another option to deal with non-compliance instead of pursuing court proceedings.
That the compliance notice system is such an alternative is reinforced by the fact that failure to obey a compliance notice is a discrete contravention of the FW Act that does not depend on proof that there has been a contravention of an instrument particularised in s.716(1).
Therefore, in this matter, Pure Telecom’s obligation to pay sums to or to the credit of Mr Yang was relevantly created by the Compliance Notice, and not by its breaches of s.90(2) and the Award, and did not depend on the Ombudsman persuading the Court that the company had committed the Underpayment Contraventions, or on the Court assuming or presuming that it had. FWI Pace’s reasonable belief, as asserted in the Compliance Notice and admitted on the pleadings, was sufficient.
It does not matter that actual contravention of an obligation listed in s.716(1) had not been proved. Section 716 creates an obligation secondary to whatever primary obligation falling within s.716(1) is reasonably believed by an inspector to have been contravened. Even so, that is not to say that an asserted reasonable belief is incontrovertible or cannot be tested and the most straightforward way of doing that would appear to be to apply for a review of a compliance notice under s.717 of the FW Act, at which the supposed contravention of primary obligations may be explored. Alternatively, in an action alleging contravention of a compliance notice, the Person might allege that the compliance notice they received was not based on the necessary reasonable belief. The person might possibly seek a s.717 review as a cross claim.
In this case, however, the respondents admitted the Underpayment Contraventions and also admitted that the Compliance Notice had been based on FWI Pace having had a reasonable belief that those contraventions had occurred. No presumption was involved.
Uncertainty of obligation under compliance notice
Pure Telecom had relevantly been required by the Compliance Notice to determine the amount it owed Mr Yang and then to pay it. It has not been suggested that a compliance notice may not be drawn in that way and, depending on the case, there are good arguments why such an approach is reasonable and appropriate. The significance of this is that failure to comply with such requirements stipulated in a compliance notice will amount to a contravention of that notice. In money cases, such as this one, the critical failure will be to have not paid the amount which correct calculations determine should have been paid. However, ultimately a compliance notice is a unity and a Person “must not fail to comply” with it in its entirety: s.716(5).
The fact that a Person is liable to be penalised under s.546 of the FW Act for contravening s.716 on account of having failed to comply with a compliance notice in its entirety indicates that a failure to make payments required by a notice, which is a contravention of s.716, also engages s.545 of the FW Act. Relevantly, the operation of both s.545 and 546 depend on a court being satisfied that a person has contravened a civil remedy provision of the FW Act.
In this case, one admitted element of the contravention of the Compliance Notice is Pure Telecom’s failure to make timeous payments to Mr Yang of the amounts owed to him, a contravention that engages both s.546 and 545 of the FW Act.
Causal connection
Immediately before the statement from Dafallah quoted earlier, Mortimer J said at 596 [158]:
While by no means operating as a mandatory approach to a discretion such as that conferred by s 545(1), with respect I adopt the remarks of Lee J in Aitken v Construction, Mining, Energy, Timberyards, Sawmills and Woodworkers Union of Australia (WA Branch) (1995) 63 IR 1, considering factors relevant to an award of compensation under s 170EE of the then Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth). His Honour said (at 9), that the Court will:
have regard to what is reasonable in the circumstances and will look at what would have been likely to occur had the Act not been contravened … The Court will consider the detriment occasioned to the employee by the employer’s contravention of the Act, and the extent to which it is reasonable to compensate the employee for such consequences.
To similar effect, in Leggett v Hawkesbury Race Club Limited (No 4) (2022) 293 FCR 608, Rares J said:
The expressions used in s 545(2)(b) “compensation” and “loss that a person has suffered” are not defined in the Fair Work Act. But the provision creates a causal link that the loss for which compensation may be awarded must arise “because of the contravention” of that Act. …
…
Any award under s 545(2)(b) is not made at common law. Rather, it is a form of statutory compensation for loss in supplementation of the more general power in s 545(1) to make “any order the court considers appropriate” if satisfied that a person has contravened a civil remedy provision. And, the relevant causal nexus between the entitlement to an order for compensation is that the person suffered the loss “because of the contravention”.
…
[The applicant’s] loss, to which the compensation payable under s 545(2)(b) applies, is to be measured by comparing her position as it is against what it would have been but for the Club’s contravention of the Fair Work Act. (at [31], [51] and [56])
There is no dispute that Pure Telecom should have paid Mr Yang what he was owed when payment fell due but did not. The Compliance Notice required that those amounts should have been paid no later than 25 October 2022, but they were not. As already observed, a compliance notice is an imperative direction which, if not obeyed, amounts to a contravention of the FW Act. It is fair to say that if Pure Telecom had obeyed the Compliance Notice, Mr Yang would have timeously received all that was due to him but the failure to obey the notice denied him that outcome, noting that an amount is still owing and is being paid off in instalments.
Comparing the situation Mr Yang is in now with the situation he would have been in if the Compliance Notice had been obeyed reveals a continuing detriment which engages the Court’s power to order pecuniary compensation. The particular detriment in question is not the failure to comply with s.90(2) of the FW Act or with provisions of the Award but the contravention of the Compliance Notice which created a discrete payment obligation. It is that failure which may be compensated under s.545(1) and (2)(b).
Mandatory injunction?
It is to be observed that the statement of claim sought relief similar to that sought in Fair Work Ombudsman v Sails Waterfront Bar & Grill Pty Ltd (No 2), and did not, in terms, seek compensation, albeit that that was the effect of the relevant prayer and what was argued for. In Sales Waterfront Bar & Grill, the Court found that its powers under s.545(1) extend to the making of orders in the nature of a mandatory injunction. Some of the details of the compensation to be ordered in this matter depend on that aspect of its powers.
Statutory intervention
After judgment was reserved and towards the conclusion of my consideration of the question of compensation, my attention was drawn to an amendment of the FW Act, introduced by the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2024 (Cth). On 27 February 2024, item 155 of sch.1 to that Act introduced s.545(2)(d) of the FW Act and s.545(2) now provides:
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), orders the Federal Court or Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) may make include the following:
(a) an order granting an injunction, or interim injunction, to prevent, stop or remedy the effects of a contravention;
(b) an order awarding compensation for loss that a person has suffered because of the contravention;
(c) an order for reinstatement of a person;
(d) an order requiring a person to comply, either wholly or partly, with a notice (other than an infringement notice) given to the person by an inspector or the Fair Work Ombudsman.
That provision would appear to put it beyond doubt that the Court may order a Person to make a payment required by a compliance notice and, presumably, to allow credit for any part-satisfaction of such an obligation. However, as the point was not argued I take the matter no further.
CONCLUSION
There will be declarations that the respondents contravened s.716(5) of the FW Act by failing to comply with the Compliance Notice.
There will also be orders that Pure Telecom pay to or for the benefit of Mr Yang his outstanding wage entitlements in accordance with the schedule found in Schedule A to these reasons, and also his outstanding superannuation entitlements, and provide the Ombudsman with reasonable evidence that it has done so.
Mr Woods will be ordered to make good any default in payment by Pure Telecom.
Finally, Pure Telecom will be ordered to pay the Commonwealth a penalty of $7,000 within 28 days of it paying the last of Mr Yang’s unpaid wages or by 26 March 2026, whichever is earlier, and Mr Woods will be ordered to pay the Commonwealth a penalty of $1,400 at the same time.
I certify that the preceding seventy-five (75) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Cameron. Associate:
Dated: 25 July 2024
SCHEDULE A
Wage Underpayments Minimum Payment Schedule
Payment No Date Due Amount of payment ($) Balance owing after payment ($) 1 20-Jun-24 $250.00 $21,898.84 2 27-Jun-24 $250.00 $21,648.84 3 4-Jul-24 $250.00 $21,398.84 4 11-Jul-24 $250.00 $21,148.84 5 18-Jul-24 $250.00 $20,898.84 6 25-Jul-24 $250.00 $20,648.84 7 1-Aug-24 $250.00 $20,398.84 8 8-Aug-24 $250.00 $20,148.84 9 15-Aug-24 $250.00 $19,898.84 10 22-Aug-24 $250.00 $19,648.84 11 29-Aug-24 $250.00 $19,398.84 12 5-Sep-24 $250.00 $19,148.84 13 12-Sep-24 $250.00 $18,898.84 14 19-Sep-24 $250.00 $18,648.84 15 26-Sep-24 $250.00 $18,398.84 16 3-Oct-24 $250.00 $18,148.84 17 10-Oct-24 $250.00 $17,898.84 18 17-Oct-24 $250.00 $17,648.84 19 24-Oct-24 $250.00 $17,398.84 20 31-Oct-24 $250.00 $17,148.84 21 7-Nov-24 $250.00 $16,898.84 22 14-Nov-24 $250.00 $16,648.84 23 21-Nov-24 $250.00 $16,398.84 24 28-Nov-24 $250.00 $16,148.84 25 5-Dec-24 $250.00 $15,898.84 26 12-Dec-24 $250.00 $15,648.84 27 19-Dec-24 $250.00 $15,398.84 28 26-Dec-24 $250.00 $15,148.84 29 2-Jan-25 $250.00 $14,898.84 30 9-Jan-25 $250.00 $14,648.84 31 16-Jan-25 $250.00 $14,398.84 32 23-Jan-25 $250.00 $14,148.84 33 30-Jan-25 $250.00 $13,898.84 34 6-Feb-25 $250.00 $13,648.84 35 13-Feb-25 $250.00 $13,398.84 36 20-Feb-25 $250.00 $13,148.84 37 27-Feb-25 $250.00 $12,898.84 38 6-Mar-25 $250.00 $12,648.84 39 13-Mar-25 $250.00 $12,398.84 40 20-Mar-25 $250.00 $12,148.84 41 27-Mar-25 $250.00 $11,898.84 42 3-Apr-25 $250.00 $11,648.84 43 10-Apr-25 $250.00 $11,398.84 44 17-Apr-25 $250.00 $11,148.84 45 24-Apr-25 $250.00 $10,898.84 46 1-May-25 $250.00 $10,648.84 47 8-May-25 $250.00 $10,398.84 48 15-May-25 $250.00 $10,148.84 49 22-May-25 $250.00 $9,898.84 50 29-May-25 $250.00 $9,648.84 51 5-Jun-25 $250.00 $9,398.84 52 12-Jun-25 $250.00 $9,148.84 53 19-Jun-25 $250.00 $8,898.84 54 26-Jun-25 $250.00 $8,648.84 55 3-Jul-25 $250.00 $8,398.84 56 10-Jul-25 $250.00 $8,148.84 57 17-Jul-25 $250.00 $7,898.84 58 24-Jul-25 $250.00 $7,648.84 59 31-Jul-25 $250.00 $7,398.84 60 7-Aug-25 $250.00 $7,148.84 61 14-Aug-25 $250.00 $6,898.84 62 21-Aug-25 $250.00 $6,648.84 63 28-Aug-25 $250.00 $6,398.84 64 4-Sep-25 $250.00 $6,148.84 65 11-Sep-25 $250.00 $5,898.84 66 18-Sep-25 $250.00 $5,648.84 67 25-Sep-25 $250.00 $5,398.84 68 2-Oct-25 $250.00 $5,148.84 69 9-Oct-25 $250.00 $4,898.84 70 16-Oct-25 $250.00 $4,648.84 71 23-Oct-25 $250.00 $4,398.84 72 30-Oct-25 $250.00 $4,148.84 73 6-Nov-25 $250.00 $3,898.84 74 13-Nov-25 $250.00 $3,648.84 75 20-Nov-25 $250.00 $3,398.84 76 27-Nov-25 $250.00 $3,148.84 77 4-Dec-25 $250.00 $2,898.84 78 11-Dec-25 $250.00 $2,648.84 79 18-Dec-25 $250.00 $2,398.84 80 25-Dec-25 $250.00 $2,148.84 81 1-Jan-26 $250.00 $1,898.84 82 8-Jan-26 $250.00 $1,648.84 83 15-Jan-26 $250.00 $1,398.84 84 22-Jan-26 $250.00 $1,148.84 85 29-Jan-26 $250.00 $898.84 86 5-Feb-26 $250.00 $648.84 87 12-Feb-26 $250.00 $398.84 88 19-Feb-26 $250.00 $148.84 89 26-Feb-26 $148.84 $0.00
8
16
0