Shergill v Singh

In the case of Shergill v Singh, the applicant, Seema Shergill, sought relief from the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia against the respondent, Mr Singh, who was the Indian High Commissioner to Australia. Shergill alleged that Singh had contravened several sections of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and clauses of the Miscellaneous Award 2010 by employing her as a domestic worker without providing her with proper working conditions, including excessive hours, lack of meal breaks, and inadequate entitlements. Additionally, Shergill sought an order permitting the hearing to proceed in the absence of Singh, who had not filed any necessary documents or notices.

The court had to determine whether Shergill's employer, Singh, could claim immunity under the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Cth) and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961, given that Singh was a foreign diplomat. The court also needed to decide whether Shergill's employment constituted an act performed in the exercise of functions as a member of the mission, which would confer immunity.

The court found that Shergill's employment did not qualify for diplomatic immunity as she was not employed by the High Commission and did not perform any official duties for the Commission. Instead, she worked as a domestic worker for Singh and his wife. The court held that the provisions of the Fair Work Act applied, and Singh could not claim immunity from the allegations. The court granted Shergill's application for the hearing to proceed in Singh's absence and made significant declarations of contravention. The court ordered Singh to pay Shergill $136,276.62 plus interest for the loss suffered due to the contraventions of the Fair Work Act and scheduled a further hearing to determine the penalties.

The final orders included the payment of $136,276.62 plus interest by Singh to Shergill within 60 days, leave for the parties to apply to vary the declarations and orders within 14 days, liberty for Shergill to apply if the orders were not complied with, and a case management hearing to schedule the penalty hearing.