Fair Work Ombudsman v Territory Tough Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2024] FedCFamC2G 743
•16 August 2024
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Fair Work Ombudsman v Territory Tough Pty Ltd [2024] FedCFamC2G 743
[2024] FedCFamC2G 743
16 August 2024
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Fair Work Ombudsman v Territory Tough Pty Ltd, the Fair Work Ombudsman filed a claim against Territory Tough for failure to comply with a Compliance Notice issued under the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute centred on the company’s failure to pay its apprentice, Mr Sellers, the full entitlements owed to him, including wages and other benefits. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
The court was required to determine whether pecuniary penalties should be imposed on Territory Tough for its failure to comply with the Compliance Notice, and if so, the appropriate amount. The key legal issues involved assessing the culpability of the company, the extent of its non-compliance, and the need for deterrence and corrective action. The court also needed to consider the financial impact on Mr Sellers due to the company's actions and the need to uphold the integrity of the compliance notice regime.
The court found that Territory Tough’s failure to comply with the Compliance Notice was significant and had defeated the purpose and benefits of the regime. The company's response to its non-compliance was limited, with only partial payments made to Mr Sellers and minimal cooperation with the Fair Work Ombudsman. The court considered factors such as the irregular payments made to Mr Sellers, the company's unresponsiveness during the investigation, and its continued disengagement even after the Compliance Notice period had expired. The court concluded that the penalty should reflect the need for deterrence and the seriousness of the breach, and ordered a pecuniary penalty of $10,000.
The court also ordered that Territory Tough pay the outstanding amount owed to Mr Sellers, along with interest and costs. The penalty and costs were to be paid within 28 days of the judgment.
The court was required to determine whether pecuniary penalties should be imposed on Territory Tough for its failure to comply with the Compliance Notice, and if so, the appropriate amount. The key legal issues involved assessing the culpability of the company, the extent of its non-compliance, and the need for deterrence and corrective action. The court also needed to consider the financial impact on Mr Sellers due to the company's actions and the need to uphold the integrity of the compliance notice regime.
The court found that Territory Tough’s failure to comply with the Compliance Notice was significant and had defeated the purpose and benefits of the regime. The company's response to its non-compliance was limited, with only partial payments made to Mr Sellers and minimal cooperation with the Fair Work Ombudsman. The court considered factors such as the irregular payments made to Mr Sellers, the company's unresponsiveness during the investigation, and its continued disengagement even after the Compliance Notice period had expired. The court concluded that the penalty should reflect the need for deterrence and the seriousness of the breach, and ordered a pecuniary penalty of $10,000.
The court also ordered that Territory Tough pay the outstanding amount owed to Mr Sellers, along with interest and costs. The penalty and costs were to be paid within 28 days of the judgment.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Employment & Labour Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Compliance Notice
-
Pecuniary Penalties
-
Apprentice Entitlements
-
Contempt of Court
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Fair Work Ombudsman v LROC Builders Pty Ltd [2025] FedCFamC2G 1516
Cases Citing This Decision
4
Fair Work Ombudsman v LROC Builders Pty Ltd
[2025] FedCFamC2G 1516
Fair Work Ombudsman v Annangrove Road Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2)
[2024] FedCFamC2G 854
Fair Work Ombudsman v LROC Builders Pty Ltd
[2025] FedCFamC2G 1516
Cases Cited
13
Statutory Material Cited
1
R v Walkuski
[2010] SASC 146
Trade Practices Commission v CSR Ltd
[1990] FCA 521