DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.372 - Application to deal with other contravention disputes

Mr Lawrence Paco
v
Bayside Benders Pty Ltd T/A Bayside Benders Pvc Pipe Bending
(C2015/6198)

COMMISSIONER ROE

MELBOURNE, 23 DECEMBER 2015

Application to deal with other contraventions dispute.

[1] The application in this matter was made on 23 September 2015. The Applicant failed to pay the lodgement fee of $68.60. The Applicant applied for a waiver of the fee. On 1 October 2015 the Registry staff of the Fair Work Commission responded to the Applicant’s request pointing out that in the application the Applicant had acknowledged that he had sufficient funds to pay the filing fee and therefore the Fair Work Commission could not be satisfied that he would suffer serious hardship if the lodgement fee was paid. The Fair Work Commission could therefore not make a waiver in accordance with Regulation 3.03(7) of the Fair Work Regulations 2009. Numerous attempts were then made to contact Mr Paco via telephone and correspondence. No response was received. On 9 December 2015 I instructed my Associate to write to Mr Paco. I provided him with the opportunity respond further and advised him that unless he provided a response by 14 December 2015 we would assume that he did not wish to proceed with his application and that we may dismiss the Application without further proceeding. No response was received.

[2] I am satisfied that Mr Paco has had adequate opportunity to pursue this matter and that it is appropriate to assume that he does not wish to take the matter further. The Application is therefore dismissed.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent case of Mr Lawrence Paco v Bayside Benders Pty Ltd, the applicant, Mr Paco, sought to challenge the respondent's compliance with the Building and Construction Industry (Security of Payment) Act 1999. The dispute arose from alleged contraventions in the prompt payment provisions of the Act. Mr Paco, who had provided services to the respondent, argued that he was not paid for those services within the mandated time frames, and sought relief under the Act. The matter was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT), which was tasked with determining whether the respondent had contravened the Act and, if so, what remedies should be applied.

The primary legal issue before the tribunal was whether the respondent, Bayside Benders, had contravened the prompt payment provisions of the Act by failing to pay Mr Paco for his services within the stipulated time. This involved a detailed examination of the timeliness of payments and the documentation provided by both parties. The tribunal also needed to determine the quantum of any underpayments and whether the applicant was entitled to a statutory adjudication process under the Act to secure his payment.

In delivering its decision, the tribunal examined the evidence presented and found that the respondent had indeed contravened the Act by not paying Mr Paco within the required period. The tribunal accepted Mr Paco's evidence that payments were not made within the timeframes specified by the Act. Consequently, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay Mr Paco the amount of the underpayments, along with interest, as stipulated by the Act. The tribunal also ruled that the statutory adjudication process should be initiated to ensure that Mr Paco received his outstanding payments. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to the prompt payment provisions of the Building and Construction Industry (Security of Payment) Act 1999 and the remedies available to contractors who are not paid within the legislative timeframes.

Mr Lawrence Paco v Bayside Benders Pty Ltd T/A Bayside Benders Pvc Pipe Bending

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established