New v Edition Coffee Roasters Pty Ltd [2022]
Headnote
Pursuant to the ruling above, Voice Lawyers again represented the Applicant, against the First and Second Respondents, his former employer, in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2). The matter involved a determination as to whether the appropriate penalty had been imposed on the Second Respondent in the ruling above, which the Court ultimately held that it had.
Catchwords
INDUSTRIAL LAW – Fair Work – Pecuniary Penalties – Breaches of ss 44, 45, 340, 535 and 536 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – orders made
Background
The matter followed the determination above in relation to the dispute between the Applicant represented by Voice Lawyers, and the Respondents, Edition Coffee Roasters Pty Ltd and Daniel Jackson.
The judgment involved a civil penalty determination in relation to the appropriate penalty imposed on the Second Respondent, Daniel Jackson, following breaches of ss 44, 45, 340, 535 and 536 of the Act, as explained the abovementioned ruling.
Substance of Matter and Key Arguments
Under s546, the Court can make a pecuniary order if satisfied that a civil remedy has been breached, and it reaffirmed that the Second Defendant had done so.
In making such an order, the Court was to consider the wide range of factors set out in Mason v Herrington Corporation Pty Ltd [2007] FMCA 7, including the nature and extent of conduct and loss from the breach, the size of the business involved, whether breaches were deliberate, whether contrition was demonstrated, whether corrective action had taken place, and the need for general and specific deterrence.
Outcome
The Court applied the factors above in Mason v Herrington Corporation Pty Ltd to the alleged breaches of ss 44, 45, 240, 535, and 536 of the Act, and contended that the Second Respondent had contravened all of them and was required to pay a sum of AUD$40,500 to the Applicant.