Fair Work Ombudsman v Ross

The Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) brought proceedings against Mr Ross concerning alleged contraventions of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) (the Act). The dispute centred on Mr Ross's alleged failure to comply with a notice issued by the FWO under section 484 of the Act, which requires employers to provide information or documents relevant to an investigation into a potential contravention of the Act. Mr Ross was the sole director and secretary of a company, and the FWO's investigation related to alleged underpayments of employees of that company. The proceedings were heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether Mr Ross had contravened section 484(1) of the Act by failing to comply with the notice issued by the FWO. This required the Court to determine if the notice was validly issued and served, and if Mr Ross, as a director, could be held personally liable for the company's failure to comply with the notice. The Court also considered whether Mr Ross had a reasonable excuse for his non-compliance.

Vasta J found that the FWO had established that the notice was validly issued and served on Mr Ross. The Court reasoned that section 484(1) imposes a positive obligation on the person to whom the notice is issued to provide the requested information or documents. Mr Ross's assertion that he was unaware of the notice's contents or that he believed the company was not obligated to comply did not constitute a reasonable excuse. The Court applied the principle that ignorance of the law or the specific requirements of a notice does not generally provide a defence to a statutory obligation. Furthermore, the Court found that Mr Ross, as a director, was a person who could be held liable for the company's contravention under section 550 of the Act, as he was knowingly concerned in the contravention.

The Court ordered Mr Ross to pay a pecuniary penalty for his contravention of section 484(1) of the Act.