Ingleton v Boswell - [2025] FedCFamC2G 977

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Ingleton v Boswell [2025] FedCFamC2G 977

File number(s): SYG 3046 of 2024

Judgment of: JUDGE PAPADOPOULOS

Date of judgment: 27 June 2025

Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – FAIR WORK – application for default judgment – consideration of rr 13.04 and 13.05 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) – alleged contraventions of ss 45 and 323(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – serious contraventions found – application granted.

Legislation:
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 45, 323(1), 545(1) and 557A

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr 13.04 and 13.05

Cases cited:
United Voice v Gold Coast Kennels Discretionary Trust t/as AAA Pet Resort [2018] FWCFB 128

Wilkinson v Wilson Security Pty Ltd (No 3) (2024) 332 IR 387; [2024] FCA 705

Division: Division 2 General Federal Law

Number of paragraphs: 43

Date of hearing: 6 June 2025

Place: Sydney

Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr J Li of National Workplace Lawyers

Respondent: No appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent
ORDERS

SYG 3046 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
JESSE INGLETON

Applicant

AND:
CHRISTOPHER BOSWELL

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE PAPADOPOULOS

DATE OF ORDER:

27 JUNE 2025

THE COURT DECLARES THAT:
1.The respondent contravened sections 45 and 323(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) by failing to pay the applicant in accordance with the Miscellaneous Award 2020.
2.The respondent’s contraventions of sections 45 and 323(1) constitute serious contraventions within the meaning of section 557A(1) of the FW Act.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
3.Pursuant to sections 545(1) and 547 of the FW Act, the respondent pay as compensation to the applicant, on or by 11 July 2025, the amount of $286.77.
4.The applicant is to file and serve written submissions in relation to any further declaratory relief orders, pecuniary penalty orders, interest orders or costs orders sought by 11 July 2025.
5.The respondent is to file and serve any written submissions in response by 25 July 2025.
6.If it be deemed necessary by the Court, the matter be listed for further hearing, on a date convenient to the Court, as to any further declaratory relief orders, pecuniary penalty orders, interest orders or costs orders sought by the applicant.

THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.These declarations and orders are made pursuant to rules 13.04(2)(b) and 13.05(2)(c) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Rules (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

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 or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ingleton v Boswell 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] FedCFamC2G 977
Decision Date: 27 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ingleton v Boswell involved a dispute between Jesse Ingleton, the applicant, and Boswell, the respondent. Jesse Ingleton sought a default judgment against Boswell for unpaid wages and alleged contraventions of sections 45 and 323(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was filed and listed for hearing on 6 June 2025, after the respondent failed to comply with various procedural requirements and failed to pay the wages claimed. The legal issues before the court included whether the respondent was in default under the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) General Federal Law) Rules 2021 and whether the applicant was entitled to a default judgment. The court examined the respondent's non-compliance with multiple procedural obligations, including failure to provide an address for service, failure to file a response, and failure to attend court hearings. The court found that the respondent was in default and granted the application for default judgment based on the serious contraventions of the Fair Work Act.

The court carefully considered the evidence presented, including affidavits from Jesse Ingleton and other witnesses, which detailed the respondent's failure to satisfy the applicant's claim for unpaid wages and the failure to comply with court orders and procedural requirements. The court held that the respondent's default was clear and that the applicant was entitled to relief as claimed. In granting the application for default judgment, the court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural obligations and the consequences of failing to do so. The court found that the applicant's claims were substantiated, and the respondent's failure to defend the proceeding justified the granting of the default judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

A copy of the application and accompanying Affidavit of the applicant was personally served on the respondent on 1 December 2024 by the applicant’s father, Ryan Ingleton. An Affidavit of service to this effect was made by Ryan Ingleton on 23 January 2025 and filed the same day.DEFAULT JUDGMENTThe respondent’s default The default judgment application was filed by the applicant on 4 April 2025. That application was listed for hearing of an interlocutory application before me on 6 June 2025. In support of the default judgment application, the applicant relies on:(a)the Affidavit of the applicant, Jesse Ingleton, sworn on 21 November 2024; (b)the Affidavit of service of Ryan Ingleton, sworn on 23 January 2025;(c)the Affidavit of Jimmy Li, sworn on 3 April 2025;(d)the Affidavit of Service of Gavin Bellamy, sworn on 12 May 2025;(e)the Affidavit of Jimmy Li, sworn on 15 May 2025; and(f)the Affidavit of the applicant, Jesse Ingleton, sworn on 15 May 2025. Rule 13.04 of the Rules relevantly provides:13.04 When a party is in default(1) For the purposes of rule 13.05, an applicant is in default if the applicant fails to:(a) comply with an order of the Court in the proceeding; or(b) file and serve a document required under these Rules; or(c) produce a document as required by Part 14; or(d) do any act required to be done by these Rules; or(e) prosecute the proceeding with due diligence.(2) For the purposes of rule 13.05, a respondent is in default if the respondent:(a) has not satisfied the applicant's claim; and(b) fails to:(i) give an address for service before the time for the respondent to give an address has expired; or(ii) file a response before the time for the respondent to file a response has expired; or(iii) comply with an order of the Court in the proceeding; or(iv) file and serve a document required under these Rules; or(v) produce a document as required by Part 14; or(vi) do any act required to be done by these Rules; or(vii) defend the proceeding with due diligence. Rule 13.05 of the Rules relevantly provides:13.05 Orders on default…(2) If a respondent is in default, the Court may:…(c) if the proceeding was started by an application supported by a statement of claim or the Court has ordered that the proceeding continue on pleadings--give judgment against the respondent for the relief that:(i) the applicant appears entitled to on the statement of claim; and(ii) the Court is satisfied it has power to grant; or…(6) The Court may make an order of the kind mentioned in subrule (1), (2) or (4), or any other order, or may give any directions, and specify any consequences for non-compliance with the order, that the Court thinks just. The applicant submits that the respondent is in default within the meaning of rule 13.04(2) for reason that:(a)the respondent has to date not paid the applicant his wages for the work performed on 28 July 2024 and therefore has not satisfied the applicant’s claim;(b)the respondent failed to comply with rule 6.01 to give an address for service;(c)the respondent failed to comply with rule 4.03(3) to file a response to the application by 29 December 2024, being 28 days after he was served with the application;(d)the respondent failed to comply with order 1 of the 3 February 2025 Directions;(e)the respondent failed to comply with order 3 of the 3 February 2025 Directions;(f)the respondent failed to attend the First Court Date on 3 February 2025;(g)the respondent failed to attend the directions hearing on 2 May 2025; and(h)having regard to the above, the respondent has failed to defend the proceeding with due diligence.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

File number(s):	SYG 3046 of 2024
Judgment of:	JUDGE PAPADOPOULOS
Date of judgment:	27 June 2025
Catchwords:	INDUSTRIAL LAW – FAIR WORK – application for default judgment – consideration of rr 13.04 and 13.05 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) – alleged contraventions of ss 45 and 323(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – serious contraventions found – application granted.
Legislation:	Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 45, 323(1), 545(1) and 557A Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr 13.04 and 13.05
Cases cited:	United Voice v Gold Coast Kennels Discretionary Trust t/as AAA Pet Resort [2018] FWCFB 128 Wilkinson v Wilson Security Pty Ltd (No 3) (2024) 332 IR 387; [2024] FCA 705
Division:	Division 2 General Federal Law
Number of paragraphs:	43
Date of hearing:	6 June 2025
Place:	Sydney

Solicitor for the Applicant:	Mr J Li of National Workplace Lawyers
Respondent:	No appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent

SYG 3046 of 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	JESSE INGLETON Applicant
AND:	CHRISTOPHER BOSWELL Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE PAPADOPOULOS
DATE OF ORDER:	27 JUNE 2025