FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Fair Work Ombudsman v Statewide Security (WA) Pty Ltd [2022] FedCFamC2G 194
ORDERS
PEG 86 of 2021 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: FAIR WORK OMBUDSMAN
Applicant
AND: STATEWIDE SECURITY (WA) PTY LTD
First Respondent
RICHARD MICHAEL CLAYTON
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE LADHAMS
DATE OF ORDER:
22 MARCH 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to s 546(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Fair Work Act):
(a)the first respondent pay a pecuniary penalty of $61,500 for its contraventions of ss 712(3) and 716(5) of the Fair Work Act as declared at A and B of the Order made on 11 August 2021; and
(b)the second respondent pay a pecuniary penalty of $12,500 for his involvement in the contraventions of the first respondent of ss 712(3) and 716(5) of the Fair Work Act as declared at C, D, E and F of the Order made on 11 August 2021.
2.Pursuant to s 546(3)(a) of the Fair Work Act, the pecuniary penalties ordered to be paid by the respondents in order 1 above be paid to the Commonwealth of Australia within 28 days of this Order.
3.The applicant have liberty to apply on seven days’ notice in the event that any of the preceding orders are not complied with.
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…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Fair Work Ombudsman v Statewide Security (WA) 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
- [2022] FedCFamC2G 194
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining the appropriate penalty for the respondents' breaches of sections 712(3) and 716(5) of the Fair Work Act, as declared by Judge Kendall in an earlier order. The court had to consider the separate contraventions, whether these contraventions should be dealt with individually or aggregated, and the appropriate penalty for each contravention. The court also had to consider the overall penalties and ensure they were appropriate and proportionate to the conduct of the respondents.
The court found that the respondents' actions constituted serious breaches of workplace laws, which were deliberate and involved multiple contraventions over an extended period. The court applied the principles outlined in the High Court's decision in Commonwealth of Australia v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate (2015) 258 CLR 482; [2015] HCA 46 and considered the totality of the respondents' conduct. The court concluded that an order for the respondents to pay a pecuniary penalty was appropriate, ensuring compliance and deterrence as intended by the Fair Work Act.
Accordingly, the court ordered the first respondent to pay a pecuniary penalty of $61,500 and the second respondent to pay a penalty of $12,500. The penalties were to be paid to the Commonwealth within 28 days of the order. The applicant was granted liberty to apply for enforcement if the penalties were not paid.
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
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
I am satisfied that the respondents were properly notified of the Order made by Judge Kendall and the hearing listed on 28 February 2022 and that they were served a copy of the applicant’s evidence and submissions. I considered that it was appropriate to proceed with the hearing on penalty in the absence of the respondents. CONSIDERATION Section 546(1) of the Fair Work Act gives the Court a discretion to order a person to pay a pecuniary penalty if it is satisfied that person has contravened a civil remedy provision. Sections 712(3) and 716(5) of the Fair Work Act are civil remedy provisions. The Court has already declared, in the Order made by Judge Kendall on 11 August 2021, that the first respondent contravened ss 712(3) and 716(5) of the Fair Work Act and that the second respondent was involved in that contravention. I am satisfied that an order for the respondents to pay a pecuniary penalty is appropriate. The purpose of a civil pecuniary penalty was explained by the plurality (French CJ, Kiefel, Bell Gordon and Nettle JJ) in the High Court’s decision in Commonwealth of Australia v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate (2015) 258 CLR 482; [2015] HCA 46, where their Honours said at [55] (footnotes omitted):No less importantly, whereas criminal penalties import notions of retribution and rehabilitation, the purpose of a civil penalty, as French J explained in Trade Practices Commission v CSR Ltd, is primarily if not wholly protective in promoting the public interest in compliance:Punishment for breaches of the criminal law traditionally involves three elements: deterrence, both general and individual, retribution and rehabilitation. Neither retribution nor rehabilitation, within the sense of the Old and New Testament moralities that imbue much of our criminal law, have any part to play in economic regulation of the kind contemplated by Pt IV [of the Trade Practices Act]. … The principal, and I think probably the only, object of the penalties imposed by s 76 is to attempt to put a price on contravention that is sufficiently high to deter repetition by the contravenor and by others who might be tempted to contravene the Act. The greater the penalty that is imposed on the contravener, the more likely the contravener will be deterred from further contravention of the Fair Work Act and will seek to avoid the risk of subjection to further penalties: Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (2018) 262 CLR 157; [2018] HCA 3 at [116]. Approach for imposing civil penalties Justice Bromwich in the Federal Court decision of Fair Work Ombudsman v NSH North Pty Ltd t/as New Shanghai Charlestown (2017) 275 IR 148; [2017] FCA 1301 (NSH North) outlined the approach that should be taken when determining the appropriate penalty. His Honour outlined the following steps at [36]:(1) Identify the separate contraventions, with each breach of each obligation being a separate contravention, and each breach of a term of the Award being a separate contravention.(2) Consider whether each separate contravention should be dealt with independently or with some degree of aggregation for those contraventions arising out of a course of conduct, noting that s 557 of the FW Act provides that two or more contraventions of a given civil remedy provision are to be taken to be a single contravention if committed by the same person and arising out of a course of conduct by that person.(3) Consider whether there should be further adjustment to ensure that, to the extent of any overlap between groups of separate aggregated contraventions, there is no double penalty imposed, and that the penalty is an appropriate response to what each respondent did.(4) Consider the appropriate penalty in respect of each final individual group of contraventions, taken in isolation.(5) Consider the overall penalties arrived at, including by reference to those which may be proposed by the FWO (as permitted by Commonwealth v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate [2015] HCA 46; 258 CLR 482 (CFMEU Civil Penalties Case) at [64]) and what is proposed by the respondents, and apply the totality principle, to ensure that the penalties for each respondent are appropriate and proportionate to the conduct viewed as a whole, making such adjustments as are necessary: see Kelly v Fitzpatrick [2007] FCA 1080; 166 IR 14 at [30]; Australian Ophthalmic Supplies Pty Ltd v McAlary-Smith [2008] FCAFC 8; 165 FCR 560 at [23]. [71] and [102].Identification of contraventions