FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| FAIR WORK OMBUDSMAN v SECURITY PROTECTION SERVICES PTY LTD & ORS | [2010] FMCA 252 |
| INDUSTRIAL LAW – WORKPLACE RELATIONS – Contraventions of award and collective agreement – previous history of contraventions – need for specific deterrence. PENALTIES – Principles for fixing – totality principle. |
| Workplace Relations Act 1996, ss.185(2), 719, 728 |
| Applicant: | FAIR WORK OMBUDSMAN |
| First Respondent: | SECURITY PROTECTION SERVICES PTY LTD |
| Second Respondent: | NEIL STEWART RUUT |
| Third Respondent: | CINDY MICHELLE RUUT |
| File Number: | LNG 8 of 2009 |
| Judgment of: | Turner FM |
| Hearing date: | 2 March 2010 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 1 April 2010 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Delivered on: | 13 April 2010 |
REPRESENTATION
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Zeeman & Zeeman |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Gunson Williams |
ORDERS
The Court imposes a total penalty of $136,900.00 on the second and third respondents jointly and severally.
That the second and third respondents pay penalties totalling $136,900.00 within 60 days.
That the matter be adjourned to 10am on 28 April 2010 in MELBOURNE in relation to the issues of to whom the penalties are to be paid and the applicant’s applications for interest and costs.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
LNG 8 of 2009
| FAIR WORK OMBUDSMAN |
Applicant
And
| SECURITY PROTECTION SERVICES PTY LTD |
First Respondent
| NEIL STEWART RUUT |
Second Respondent
| CINDY MICHELLE RUUT |
Third Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application under s.719 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (the “WRA”) for the imposition of penalties for the underpayment of 47 employees (Statement of Agreed Facts “SOAF” 2.2) engaged in the security and watching services industry in Tasmania.
The applicant seeks the imposition of…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Fair Work Ombudsman v Security Protection Services 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
- [2010] FMCA 252
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the nature and severity of the contraventions, the previous history of non-compliance by the respondents, and the need for specific deterrence. The court also considered the totality principle, which requires that the overall penalty be proportionate to the seriousness of the contraventions. In this case, the contraventions were serious, with multiple breaches occurring over an extended period. The court found that the respondents' previous history of non-compliance warranted a substantial penalty to ensure deterrence.
The court imposed a total penalty of $136,900.00 on the second and third respondents jointly and severally. The court directed that the penalties be paid within 60 days and adjourned the matter to address the issue of who should receive the penalties and the applicant's applications for interest and costs. The court's decision was based on the seriousness of the contraventions, the need for specific deterrence, and the totality principle.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The Court imposes a total penalty of $136,900.00 on the second and third respondents jointly and severally.
2.
That the second and third respondents pay penalties totalling $136,900.00 within 60 days.
3.
That the matter be adjourned to 10am on 28 April 2010 in MELBOURNE in relation to the issues of to whom the penalties are to be paid and the applicant’s applications for interest and costs.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.