FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Wollermann v Fortrend Securities Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 103
File number(s): VID 209 of 2024 Judgment of: O’CALLAGHAN J Date of judgment: 21 February 2025 Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – alleged contraventions of ss 323 and 536 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) – civil remedy provisions – where the respondent employer partially withheld bonus payments from the applicants following their resignation – where the respondent employer unilaterally deducted amounts from an applicant’s salary and allocated such amounts to a client entertainment and travel account – whether the alleged contravention relating to unilateral deductions was a serious contravention under s 557A of the Act – where the respondent employer failed to provide timely pay slips or provided deficient pay slips to the applicants – alleged accessorial liability under s 550 of the Act – where the managing director was liable as an accessory in respect of contraventions involving withheld bonus payments and deductions but not in respect of pay slip contraventions Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 323(1), 324, s 536(1) to (2), 550, 557A(1) and 557B(1)
Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) regs 3.46(1)(g), (2) and (4)
Long Service Leave Act 2018 (Vic) ss 6, 15 and 26(6)
Wage Theft Act 2020 (Vic)
Cases cited: Fair Work Ombudsman v Devine Marine Group Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1365
Fortrend Securities Pty Ltd v Wollermann (No 2) [2025] FCA 96
Hamilton v Whitehead (1988) 166 CLR 121
Murrihy v Betezy.com.au Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 908; (2013) 238 IR 307
Scarati v Republic of Italy (2023) 302 FCR 427
Williams v Collier International (Victoria) Pty Ltd (Industrial) [2011] VMC 82
Division: Fair Work Division Registry: Victoria National Practice Area: Employment and Industrial Relations Number of paragraphs: 74 Date of hearing: 6, 9, 16 May 2024 and 13 September 2024 Counsel for the Applicants: P D Crutchfield KC with L Merrick SC and T Burn-Francis;
M Minucci (13 September 2024)Solicitor for the Applicants: Seyfarth Shaw Counsel for the Respondents: M D Wyles KC with J R Anthony-Shaw Solicitor for the Respondents: Cornwalls ORDERS
VID 209 of 2024 BETWEEN: CHRISTOPHER JAMES WOLLERMANN
First Applicant
STEPHEN MATTHEW LYLE
Second Applicant
AND: FORTREND SECURITIES PTY LTD
First Respondent
JOSEPH BURKE FORSTER
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
O’CALLAGHAN J
DATE OF ORDER:
21 FEBRUARY 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The parties bring in appropriate minutes to give effect to these reasons.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
O’CALLAGHAN J
INTRODUCTION
This proceeding was heard together with Fortrend Securities Pty Ltd v Wollermann (No 2) [2025] FCA 96.
Mr Wollermann and Mr Lyle (together the applicants), both former employees of the first respondent (Fortrend Securities Pty Ltd or Fortrend), contend that Fortrend has contravened the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) in three ways.
First, they contend that, contrary to s 323 of the Act, Fortrend withheld bonus…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Wollermann v Fortrend Securities 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2025] FCA 103
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court encompassed whether the unilateral deductions constituted a serious contravention under section 557A of the Act, and if so, whether the managing director could be held accessorially liable for these breaches. Additionally, the court examined whether the employer's failure to provide timely or deficient pay slips constituted contraventions of the Act, and if the managing director was liable as an accessory for these specific contraventions. The court also needed to determine the appropriate remedies for the applicants.
The court found that the unilateral deductions made by the employer constituted a serious contravention of the Act, and the managing director was held accessorially liable for these breaches. However, the court ruled that the failure to provide timely or deficient pay slips did not warrant accessorial liability on the part of the managing director. Consequently, the court ordered Fortrend Securities to pay Mr. Lyle and Mr. Wollermann their respective entitlements to long service leave, amounting to $109,254.41 and $136,211.74 respectively. The court further directed the parties to bring in appropriate minutes to give effect to these reasons.
The court's final order mandated that the parties bring in appropriate minutes to ensure the implementation of the court's decisions regarding the payment of long service leave entitlements to Mr. Lyle and Mr. Wollermann. This directive aligns with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The parties bring in appropriate minutes to give effect to these reasons.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).
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
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.