Labour Hire Licensing Authority v Cameron Workforce Pty Ltd - [2025] VSC 185

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL LIST

S ECI 2023 03441

LABOUR HIRE LICENSING AUTHORITY	Plaintiff
v
CAMERON WORKFORCE PTY LTD (ACN 666 260 911)	First Defendant
and
CHAMROEUN AKA CAMERON MORM	Second Defendant
and
LINNA CHIEM	Third Defendant

---

JUDGE:	McDonald J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	10 February 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	11 April 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Labour Hire Licensing Authority v Cameron Workforce Pty Ltd & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 185

---

EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL LAW – Pecuniary penalties – Determination of appropriate penalties – Admitted contraventions of s 13 of the Labour Hire Licensing Act 2018 – Provision of labour hire services by first defendant without licence – Second and third defendants aided and abetted the contravention – Plaintiff and defendants agreed upon quantum of penalties of $1.37 million for first defendant and $65,000 for each of second and third defendants – Whether quantum of agreed penalties appropriate – Quantum of agreed penalties not appropriate – First defendant ordered to pay penalty of $200,000 – Second defendant ordered to pay penalty of $15,000 – Third defendant ordered to pay penalty of $40,000 – Labour Hire Licensing Act 2018 ss 7, 13, 93, 94, 95, 96.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr Y Bakri	Mr B Terzic, solicitor for the Labour Hire Licensing Authority
For the Defendants	Mr B Holding	David Joseph & Co. Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Between May and July 2023, the first defendant, Cameron Workforce Pty Ltd (‘CWF’), provided labour hire services to businesses in the horticultural and wine industry. The first defendant engaged in the business of providing labour hire services notwithstanding it was not a licensed provider under the Labour Hire Licensing Act 2018 (Vic) (‘Act’). The provision of labour hire services without a licence is a contravention of s 13 of the Act. The second defendant, Chamroeun (Cameron) Morm, and third defendant, Linna Chiem, aided and abetted the first defendant in its contravention of the Act.

The plaintiff, the Labour Hire Licensing Authority (‘Authority’), and the defendants have reached an agreement as to the quantum of penalties to be paid by the defendants for their admitted contraventions of the Act. The first defendant has agreed to pay a penalty of $1.37 million. The second and third defendants have each agreed to pay a penalty of $65,000.

The principal issue for determination in the present proceeding is whether the agreed penalties are appropriate. Notwithstanding the agreement of the parties, I have determined that the penalties are not appropriate. The agreed penalties are greater than is necessary to achieve the object of specific and general deterrence, and fail to strike a reasonable balance between deterrence and oppressive severity. In lieu of the agreed penalties, the first defendant will be ordered to pay a pecuniary penalty of $200,000. The second defendant will be ordered to pay a pecuniary penalty of…

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 Labour Hire Licensing Authority v Cameron Workforce 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

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] VSC 185
Decision Date: 11 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Labour Hire Licensing Authority sought to review penalties imposed by a Registrar under the Labour Hire Licensing Act 2018 for contraventions of the Act by Cameron Workforce Pty Ltd and two individuals. The original penalties imposed by the Registrar were based on an agreement between the parties, but the Authority contested the appropriateness of the agreed quantum, arguing it was too lenient. The defendants argued that the penalties were appropriate given the circumstances. The court was required to determine whether the agreed penalties were appropriate, and if not, to determine what the appropriate penalties should be.

The court noted that the purpose of the penalties was to deter future contraventions of the Act, and to provide a remedy to those affected by the contraventions. The court held that the agreed penalties were not appropriate because they did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the contraventions. The court found that the first defendant had contravened the Act by providing labour hire services without a licence, and that the second and third defendants had aided and abetted the contravention. The court considered a range of factors in determining the appropriate penalties, including the defendants' financial circumstances, the seriousness of the contraventions, and the need to deter future contraventions.

In light of the above, the court ordered that the first defendant pay a penalty of $200,000, the second defendant pay a penalty of $15,000, and the third defendant pay a penalty of $40,000. The court held that these penalties were appropriate because they reflected the seriousness of the contraventions, and would provide a deterrent to future contraventions of the Act. The defendants were ordered to pay the penalties within 28 days of the judgment.

Orders