1. The applicant tendered an affidavit[1] and gave oral evidence.
2. Jadon arranged the applicant's initial interview for a casual role at one gym in mid-2021 and then provided a written contract for that role. Jadon later promoted her to a manager role in one gym, and in May 2023 he promoted her to the Area Manager role.
3. Jadon was the owner or majority shareholder of the three companies that each had interests in specific gyms. He was the manger and controller of the business that operated all the gyms for the joint venture.
4. The applicant described Jadon's role as the controlling mind of the employer. He exercised operational and financial control over the business of all the gyms. All staff timesheets, rosters, sick certificates and proposed rosters had to be sent by her directly to Jadon. He made decisions for the employer about payroll, superannuation, staff and strategic operations. He was directly involved in making decisions about whether and when staff would be paid.
5. The applicant's statement annexed 22 documented examples of communications between herself and Jadon about these issues. These provide objective support for the applicant's assertions.
6. The applicant said Jadon had referred to an unnamed bookkeeper, but no communications were ever received from a bookkeeper. There was no evidence one actually existed. Jadon operated the multiple bank accounts of the business.
7. The applicant was prompted to check her superannuation contributions around May 2023 after a colleague Braydon Addison raised his missing contributions with her. The applicant noticed her own contributions were also overdue. She raised both defaults with Jadon. He acknowledged the defaults and assured her he would arrange for the payments to be made. Jadon later told her that Mr Addison's contributions had been paid, whereas Mr Addison told her they were never paid.
8. The applicant's missing superannuation contributions were never paid, despite the applicant following up with Jadon on multiple occasions.
9. Other employees told the applicant they had also checked their superannuation accounts around this time and learned that their own contributions were overdue. They included Sasha Berra and Maddison Wise.
10. The applicant tendered correspondence between herself and Jadon at the time of her resignation. In emails of 3 and 6 June 2024 Jadon justified his decision to withhold 'the funds owed', being her final fortnightly pay and accrued annual leave.[2] First, he asserted an overpayment of wages for 188.25 hours, after raising unspecified inadequate notice of resignation. Second, he asserted a loss of business and financial loss due to her comments to others about his management and threatened her with a claim through lawyers.
11. There was no further correspondence to the applicant, and no claim was made against her.
12. The applicant's evidence is of working an average of 45 hours a week on site plus additional work after hours making phone calls and dealing with text messages. She denied making any defamatory comments about the business or Jadon; none were ever alleged. The full circumstances of the reasons for the applicant's resignation, other than her dissatisfaction over Jadon's conduct, and the notice given, are not in evidence.
13. The applicant described the effect of these contraventions on her as follows:[3]

WITNESS: It was a very stressful situation. So I'd say the last four or five months of my employment there. It was tricky navigating those conversations. I find, like, talking about money is never an easy thing to do and when it was coming from multiple staff and there were ongoing conversations, there was - like, a few staff members who were getting delayed payments just of their wages and I felt like I was walking on eggshells every time I had to bring it up.

Steve Jadon's not exactly the easiest individual to raise concerns with, and it definitely increased my anxiety during the last few months that I was there. The staff kept coming to me and I didn't know what to say to them because I was being told that it was being taken care of. And then when I chose to leave, I just got to a point where I felt like I needed to be in a place that I didn't feel this way and then the couple of weeks following leaving, the emails that he was sending with the threats definitely increased my anxiety even more.

Not that I believe there was any truth to what he was saying because I knew what kind of employee I was, and I know I did everything I could for that business. But it was not easy still seeing those messages come through.

1. Brayden Addison provided a signed witness statement.[4] He was employed by the first respondent or one of its individual companies during the applicant's employment. He understood Jadon was the Managing Director of his employer.
2. Mr Addison initially queried his low rate of pay and unpaid superannuation contributions with the applicant. Based on her understanding that Jadon was responsible for all employee payments and payroll matters, she redirected him to Jadon. After Mr Addison did so, Jadon said he would increase his pay rate and would address the unpaid superannuation. The pay rise was delivered but no superannuation contributions were ever paid.

1. Sasha Berra also provided a signed witness statement.[5] Ms Berra understood she was employed by SRBL Pty Ltd, and that Jadon was the owner and director of that company. Ms Berra corresponded directly with Jadon about her pay and unpaid superannuation contributions. No superannuation has ever been paid.

1. I accept the applicant's well organised and unchallenged evidence, and the brief supporting evidence from Ms Berra and Mr Addison, as summarised above.
2. Based on the applicant's evidence and Jadon's emails of June 2024, I find Jadon made the decision to withhold the applicant's last two weeks of wages and 5 weeks of accrued annual leave. Based on his control of all payments and his admitted knowledge of the defaults, I find he was knowingly involved in the decisions to not make any quarterly superannuation contributions for the last year of employment. I find he was involved in the three contraventions, within the meaning of s 550 of the Act.
3. The superannuation contraventions span four missed quarterly payments but are to be treated as a single contravention. That is because they were committed by the same person as part of the same course of conduct of not approving and making any superannuation payments: s 557.

1. I recently summarised the purpose of the penalty regime as follows:[6]

The purpose of imposing a penalty is to encourage compliance through imposing a higher cost on contravening conduct than the money to be made from doing so. A civil penalty is not punitive. A civil penalty is not constrained by proportionality to the monetary value of the contraventions, but should not be crushing.

1. The contraventions had a high level of sophistication. Jadon operated under an opaque complex corporate structure at multiple sites. His business used the Deputy timesheets and rostering app. Jadon initially deployed lies in response to reported defaults. He later escalated to intimidatory tactics, by falsely alleging unspecified misconduct, then threating legal claims devoid of any intelligible detail. Finally, Jadon resisted the legal proceedings then failed to appear. Little else is known about Jadon.
2. I take into account the high value of the earned entitlements withheld by Jadon. They amounted to seven weeks' pay, plus one year of superannuation contributions. I note the asserted overpayment of $188.25 hours was equal to the applicant's five weeks accrued annual leave. I infer that number was fabricated by Jadon to match her accrued leave entitlement.
3. I also take into account the evidence of other employees not being paid all their entitlements. This indicates the profits unlawfully taken from employees, with Jadson's involvement, was probably substantially higher than the applicant's losses. Jadon's involvement in those decisions is significant background, irrespective of which of his entities was the relevant employer.
4. Apart from the absence of any admissions, rectification, contrition or cooperation, there is no evidence to suggest Jadon has resiled from his previous aggressive conduct, or that he has made any commitment to comply with the minimum National Employment Standards in his current and future business ventures. There is a high need for deterrence.
5. The refusal to pay the final fortnight of pay was a deliberate unjustified action that would foreseeably disadvantage the applicant. A high penalty is called for to deter both the employer and Jadon from similar conduct. I impose a penalty of $15,000 on Modbury and a penalty of $15,000 on Jadon. Despite the higher maximum penalty a corporation is exposed to, I consider the same penalty I have imposed on Jadon should be imposed on the corporation because Jadon was likely the sole decision maker for Modbury and was primarily responsible for the contraventions.
6. The deliberate refusal to pay out the value of annual leave accrued over about 15 months was a related contravention. I consider the same penalties are appropriate. I impose a penalty of $15,000 on Modbury and a penalty of $15,000 on Jadon.
7. The superannuation contravention spanned a much longer period. It was the product of a decision to secretly default on that obligation. Jadon then repeatedly lied about addressing the arrears to multiple employees of his business.
8. Jadon's actions may have been influenced by the all-too-common practice of employers deliberately not making complying contributions and instead making small payments to the ATO, based on tokenistic payment plans, over very long periods. I emphasise that practice is not an alternative to complying with the National Employment Standards and can be expected to attract significant penalties.
9. I consider the same penalties should be imposed for the superannuation contravention. While the initiating circumstances were a little different the respondents' need for deterrence is the same. I impose a penalty of $15,000 on Modbury, and a penalty of $15,000 on Jadon. The total of $45,000 for each respondent, is appropriate.
10. The penalties should be paid to the applicant, as the prosecutor of the application, in accordance with s 546(3).
11. Final Orders will be issued in accordance with these reasons.

[6] Trinh v The Clean Kitchen Pty Ltd & Llewellyn [2025] SAET 76, at [40].