Lukies v S2V Consulting Pty Ltd and Anor (No.2)

In *Lukies v S2V Consulting Pty Ltd and Anor (No.2)*, heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the applicant, Lukies, alleged that the first respondent, S2V Consulting Pty Ltd, had contravened sections 119 and 44 of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) by failing to make a redundancy payment. The applicant also contended that an offer of employment made by the second respondent was less favourable than their previous employment.

The court was required to determine whether S2V Consulting Pty Ltd had breached section 119 of the *Fair Work Act 2009* by failing to provide a redundancy payment to the applicant. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the offer of employment extended by the second respondent constituted a less favourable offer, which would be relevant to the assessment of any redundancy obligations.

Judge Street found that no breach of section 119 or section 44 of the *Fair Work Act 2009* had been made out. The reasoning for this conclusion, as indicated by the catchwords, was that the court was satisfied that the circumstances did not give rise to an obligation for a redundancy payment under the relevant provisions of the Act, nor was the offer of employment by the second respondent found to be less favourable in a manner that would trigger a contravention.