Fair Work Ombudsman v Safecorp Security Group Pty Ltd & Anor

The Fair Work Ombudsman (applicant) commenced proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia against Safecorp Security Group Pty Ltd (employer) and Mr. Michael John Smith (director) (respondents). The applicant alleged that the employer had contravened provisions of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) (FW Act), and that the director was knowingly concerned in these contraventions. Judgment was entered against the employer in default of its defence. The director, however, filed a defence which contested essential elements of the contraventions alleged against the employer.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the deemed admissions arising from the default judgment against the employer operated against the director, given that the director had filed a defence disputing the core allegations. Additionally, the Court considered whether to grant the applicant leave to reopen its case to adduce further evidence, and if so, whether it was in the interests of the administration of justice to do so. The Court also had to determine whether the employer had contravened section 45 of the FW Act, and whether the director was involved in the employer's contraventions of sections 45 and 536 of the FW Act, and to assess penalties.

His Honour Judge Manousaridis held that the deemed admissions arising from the default judgment against the employer did not operate against the director. This was because the director had filed a defence that put in issue the essential elements of the contraventions alleged against the employer, and the applicant had not established the employer's contraventions independently of the default judgment. The Court also refused the applicant leave to reopen its case, finding that the evidence sought to be adduced was not presented due to an error of law by the applicant and that it was not otherwise in the interests of the administration of justice to grant leave. The Court found that the director was involved in the employer's contraventions of sections 45 and 536 of the FW Act and proceeded to assess penalties.