Daoud v 3 Lads Laverton Food Hub [2025] FedCFamC2G 686

(i) $77.24 in respect of the minimum rate of pay to which the Applicant was entitled under the Award;

(ii) $51.09 in respect of penalty rates to which the Applicant was entitled under the Award;

(iii) $770.56 in respect of overtime rates to which the Applicant was entitled under the Award;

(iv) $185.74 in respect of superannuation to which the Applicant was entitled under the Award;

(v) $148.00 in respect of accrued untaken annual leave to which the Applicant was entitled under the Act.

1. Within 42 days of this order, pursuant to section 545(1) of the Act and paragraph 8(i), the Respondent pay to the Applicant:

(a) $4,541.49 in compensation for economic loss; and

(b) $2,000.00 in general damages.

1. Within 42 days of this order, pursuant to section 547(2) of the Act the Respondent pay interest to the Applicant on the amounts owed at orders 3 and 4, with the interest to be calculated in accordance with the applicable pre-judgement interest rate prescribed by the Federal Court of Australia.
2. By 4.00pm on 21 May 2025, the Applicant serve a copy of these orders on the Respondent at its registered business address and file evidence of such service with the Court.
3. The question of what (if any) pecuniary penalty(ies) are appropriate to order in respect of the contraventions that the Respondent is taken to have admitted as set out at paragraph 8 be programmed as follows:

(a) By 4.00pm on 10 June 2025, the Applicant is to file and serve any further evidence and an outline of written submissions (with a maximum of 10 pages).

(b) By 4.00pm on 8 July 2025, the Respondent is to file and serve any evidence and an outline of written submissions (with a maximum of 10 pages).

(c) By 4.00pm on 29 July 2025, the Applicant is to file and serve any further evidence and an outline of written submissions (with a maximum of 5 pages) in reply.

(d) The question of what (if any) pecuniary penalties are appropriate to order be determined on the papers.

(e) There be liberty to apply in respect of the program at this order 7.

1. Pursuant to section 545(1) of the Act , the Respondent contravened the following civil remedy provisions in relation to the employment of the Applicant:

(a) section 44 of the Act by contravening section 90(2) of the Act in relation to payment of accrued and untaken annual leave;

(b) section 44 of the Act by contravening section 125 of the Act in relation to the Fair Work Information Statement;

(c) section 45 of the Act by contravening clause 18.1 of the Restaurant Industry Award 2020 (Award) in relation to minimum rates of pay;

(d) section 45 of the Act by contravening clauses 24.1 and 24.2 of the Award in relation to penalty rates;

(e) section 45 of the Act by contravening clauses 23.1 and 23.4 of the Award in relation to overtime rates;

(f) section 45 of the Act by contravening clause 22.2 of the Award in relation to superannuation;

(g) section 45 of the Act by contravening clause 3.3 of the Award in relation to availability of copies of the Award and National Employment Standards;

(h) section 323 of the Act by failing to pay the Applicant her wages in full;

(i) section 340 of the Act by taking adverse action against the Applicant for the reason, or reasons that included the reason, that:

(i) the Applicant had and/or had exercised and/or proposed to exercise and/or to prevent the exercise of the Applicant's workplace right(s); and/or

(ii) that a third party had exercised and/or proposed to exercise workplace right(s) for the Applicant's benefit, or for the benefit of a class of persons to which the Applicant belongs;

(j) section 536(2) by providing payslips that did not include the information prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) (Regulations); and

(k) section 536(3) by providing payslips which were false or misleading.

1. In the event of any non-compliance with these orders in respect of the program for determination of the question of what (if any) pecuniary penalties are appropriate to order, the Court may enter judgement in favour of the Applicant pursuant to r.13.05 of the Rules.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court's records.

Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

1. Before the Court is an application filed by a former employee of 3 Lads Laverton Food Hub (Respondent), a Liyan Shehab Ahmed Daoud (Applicant), alleging numerous contraventions of the general protections provisions and various minimum entitlement, regular payment and payslip obligations under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act).
2. This application is one of three of its kind. As the cases are factually distinct the reasons in each matter stand alone yet bear similarities to the extent of common issues of law and procedure.
3. These reasons explain the decision to make declarations, order compensation and pecuniary penalties on default of the Respondent.

1. The Applicant filed a statement of claim which plead the essential elements of the alleged contraventions of ss.44, 45, 323, 340 and 536 of the Act by the Respondent as follows.

1. The Respondent is and at all relevant times was: a company that operated a business in the restaurant industry - selling food, coffee and other beverages to customers with a sit-down service inside the establishment; a national system employer within the meaning of s.14 of the Act; a person and an employer within the meaning of the Act.
2. The Respondent's employees and agents responsible for managing its business were, relevantly:

(a) Eili Chahine (formerly named as Second Respondent to these proceedings); and

(b) Win Nguyen.

1. The Applicant was employed to work for the Respondent on a full-time basis from 3 July until 12 July 2023 and, in this role, performed the work of a food and beverage attendant. The Applicant's duties included general waiting duties and serving customers, receiving money, taking reservations and greeting and seating guests and cleaning. At all relevant times, the Applicant was a national system employee within the meaning of s.13 of the Act and had standing pursuant to s.540 of the Act in respect of the alleged contraventions of the Act subject of these proceedings.

1. The Applicant's terms and conditions of employment were subject of a contract that was partly express, partly implied and agreed on 26 June 2023 by way of conversation at the workplace between the Applicant, the applicant in MLG1596/2023 and Eili Chahine (Employment Contract). The relevant terms of the Employment Contract were:

(a) The Applicant was engaged to work for the Respondent on a permanent, full-time basis;

(b) The Applicant was engaged to work subject to a weekly roster of around 5 days per week and 8 hours per day or shift; and

(c) The Applicant's rate of pay would be $25.00 per hour for all hours worked.

1. Pursuant to s.44 of the Act, the Respondent was required to not contravene the National Employment Standards in the Act (NES) in relation to the terms and conditions of the Applicant's employment. Pursuant to s.61 of the Act, the NES provided the following minimum entitlements applicable to the Applicant's employment:

(a) An entitlement to progressively accrue and accumulate paid annual leave at 4 weeks per year of service, from year to year and according to the ordinary hours of work: s.87 of the Act;

(b) An entitlement to be paid accrued but untaken annual leave upon the cessation of the employment: s.90(2) of the Act; and

(c) An entitlement to be given the Fair Work Information Statement before, or as soon as practicable after, the employee starts employment: s.125 of the Act.

1. Pursuant to s.45 of the Act, the Respondent was required to comply with the Award in relation to the terms and conditions of the employment of the Applicant. Pursuant to ss.47(1) and 48(1) of the Act, the Restaurant Industry Award 2020 (the Award) covered and applied to the Respondent as an employer in the restaurant industry within the meaning of cl. 4.2 of the Award and by operation of cl.4.1 of the Award. At all material times during their employment, the Applicant was classified as a food and beverage attendant grade 2 within the meaning of Schedule A.2.2 of the Award and the Applicant had the following minimum entitlements under the Award:

(a) An entitlement to a minimum ordinary hourly rate of pay of $24.08: cl.18.1;

(b) An entitlement to a penalty rate of 100% of the minimum ordinary hourly rate of pay, plus $3.93 per hour or part of an hour, for ordinary hours worked between midnight and 6.00am on a weekday: cl.24.1 and 24.2;

(c) An entitlement to overtime rates as follows for all time worked on a weekday in excess of 38 hours per week:

(i) 150% of the minimum ordinary hourly rate of pay for the first 2 hours of overtime;

(ii) 200% of the minimum ordinary hourly rate of pay thereafter,

(d) An entitlement to annual leave loading of 17.5% on all amounts payable in respect of paid annual leave, including the payment of untaken annual leave upon the end of employment: cl.25.3;

(e) An entitlement to superannuation contributions from the Respondent at the rate of 11% of the Applicant's ordinary time earnings, this amount being the minimum required to avoid the Respondent being required to pay the superannuation guarantee charge: cl. 22.2; and

(f) An entitlement to have copies of the NES and the Award made available on a notice board conveniently located at or near the workplace or through accessible electronic means: cl.3.3.

Other entitlements under the Fair Work Act

1. At all material times during their employment with the Respondent, the Applicant had an entitlement to the benefit of workplace laws and instruments, the NES and the Award, and therefore possessed a "workplace right" within the meaning of s.341(1)(a) of the Act. Further, the Applicant was at all relevant times able to make complaints and inquiries in relation to their employment with the Respondent and therefore held a "workplace right" within the meaning of s.341(1)(c)(ii) of the Act.
2. Additionally, by operation of the Act, the Respondent was required to:

(a) Pay the Applicant in full in relation to the performance of work: s.323;

(b) Give a pay slip to the Applicant within one working day of paying an amount to them in relation to the performance of work: s.536(1);

(c) Give a pay slip to the Applicant that included any information prescribed by the Regulations including the rate of pay for the employee's ordinary hours and the number of hours worked by an employee at that rate of pay: s.536(2)(b) and reg.3.46(3); and

(d) Not give a pay slip the employer knew was false and misleading: s.536(3).

1. During the week commencing 3 July 2023, in summary the Applicant worked:

(a) A total of 55 hours, across 5 shifts; and

(b) On each shift, 1.5 hours between the hours of midnight to 6.00am on weekdays,

(particulars at Annexure A to these reasons).

1. During the week of 10 July 2023, in summary the Applicant worked:

(a) A total of 30 hours, across 3 shifts; and

(b) On each of the 3 shifts, 0.5 hours per shift between the hours of midnight to 6.00am on weekdays,

(particulars at Annexure A to these reasons).

1. In respect of all the hours worked (as above), the Respondent paid the Applicant a flat rate of $18.75 per hour, inclusive of ordinary hours worked on weekdays between midnight and 6.00am and hours worked on weekdays in excess of 38 hours in a week.
2. The Applicant has not received superannuation contributions from the Respondent.
3. The Applicant has not received any payments in respect of annual leave from the Respondent.
4. The Respondent gave the Applicant a payslip which represented their hourly rate of pay as $25.00 and did not include the number of hours worked during the relevant pay period.
5. The Respondent did not, at any time during the Applicant's employment, provide to the Applicant a copy of the NES or the Award through any means or the Fair Work Information Statement.
6. Between 8 and 12 July 2023, the Applicant made complaints or inquiries in relation to their employment with the Respondent in relation to their workplace right to benefits under the Award and their workplace right to benefits under the Act. In particular, on 8 July 2023, the Applicant sent a message to a group conversation in WhatsApp to the effect that they had not been told about a probation period and sought clarification about the hourly rate of pay. Also on 8 July 2023, in the same group conversation the Applicant stated that she had not been told about a probation period wherein an employer could pay only 75% of full wages. On 9 July 2023, the Applicant sent a further message raising several issues on behalf of themselves and the applicants in the related proceedings in relation to pay and entitlements, including leave entitlements, break entitlements and the concern that 25% was effectively being deducted from their pay. On 11 July 2023, the Applicant sent messages wherein the three applicants to the related proceedings had a text message exchange with an employee of the Respondent responsible for managing the affairs of the Respondent's business, known as Win Nguyen, about the fact that the Applicant and another of the applicants had not received a payslip. By that conversation, Win Nguyen disputed the timesheets. In this context, at 6.06am, the Applicant sent a message to the effect that the three applicants to the related proceedings have in their previous work been paid for every second worked. At 1.12pm, the Applicant sent another message to the effect that Win Nguyen needed to ensure that the applicants' wages were paid to them.
7. Following the Complaints or Inquiries, the Respondent demonstrated a palpably hostile and retaliatory attitude toward the Applicant and otherwise ignored or refused to speak with the Applicant when they were present at the workplace. In particular, on 12 July 2023, Win Nguyen corresponded with the applicants in their WhatsApp group conversation in response to their requests for payment of outstanding wages in terms that the Complaints or Inquiries made were "selfish".
8. Also on 12 July 2023, Eili Chahine dismissed the Applicant (and related applicants) from their employment with the Respondent by saying words to the effect of "never come back".

1. By reason of the matters at paragraphs 10(a) and 13-15, the Respondent contravened cl.18.1 of the Award and s.45 of the Act by failing to pay a minimum ordinary hourly rate of pay in the amount of $24.08 to the Applicant. Because of the Respondent's contravention of s.45, the Applicant suffered loss and damage calculated in the amount of $77.24.
2. By reason of the matters at paragraphs 10(b) and 13-15, the Respondent contravened cl.24.1 and 24.2 of the Award and s.45 of the Act by failing to pay to the Applicant the applicable penalty rate for ordinary hours worked between midnight and 6.00am on a weekday plus $3.93 per hour or part of an hour. Because of the Respondent's contravention of s.45, the Applicant suffered loss and damage calculated in the amount of $51.09.
3. By reason of the matters at paragraphs 10(c) and 13-15, the Respondent contravened cl.23.1 and 23.4 of the Award and s.45 of the Act by failing to pay to the Applicant the applicable overtime rate for all time worked in excess of 38 hours per week. Because of the Respondent's contravention of s.45, the Applicant suffered loss and damage calculated in the amount of $770.56.
4. By reason of the matters at paragraphs 10(e) and 16, the Respondent contravened 22.2 of the Award and s.45 of the Act by failing to make any superannuation contributions on behalf of the Applicant. Because of the Respondent's contravention of s.45, the Applicant suffered loss and damage calculated in the amount of $185.74.
5. By reason of the matters at paragraphs 9(a) and (b) and 10(d), the Respondent contravened ss.90(2) and 44 of the Act by failing to make payment of accrued but untaken annual leave to the Applicant when their employment ended and 17.5% loading required on such payment. Because of the Respondent's contravention of s.44, the Applicant suffered loss and damage calculated in the amount of $148.00.

1. By reason of the matters set out in paragraphs 12(a) and 13-15, the Respondent contravened s.323 by making a deduction from the Applicant's pay that was not in accordance with s.324 of the Act and thereby failing to pay wages in full to the Applicant, where the 25% deduction was not authorised in writing by the Applicant and was not principally for the benefit of the Applicant.
2. By reason of the matters at paragraphs 12(b)-(c) and 18, the Respondent contravened s.536(2) of the Act by giving the Applicant a payslip that did no include the number of hours worked during the relevant pay period.
3. By reason of the matters at paragraphs 12(b)-(d) and 18, the Respondent contravened s.536(3) of the Act by giving the Applicant a payslip that the Respondent knew was false or misleading.
4. By reason of the matters at paragraphs 9(c) and 19, the Respondent contravened ss.44 and 125 of the Act by failing to give the Applicant the Fair Work Information Statement before, or as soon as practicable after, commencement of the employment.
5. By reason of the matters at paragraphs 10(f) and 19, the Respondent contravened cl.3.3 of the Award and s.45 of the Act by failing to make copies of the NES or the Award available to the Applicant.

1. By the conduct and actions at paragraph 20, the Applicant exercised a workplace right to make a complaint or inquiry as set out at paragraph 11. By the conduct and actions at paragraphs 20 to 22, the Respondent took adverse action within the meaning of s.342(1) of the Act against the Applicant by dismissing them from their employment with the Respondent, for reasons which included that the Applicant had exercised or proposed to exercise and/or to prevent the exercise of the Applicant's workplace rights to benefits under the Award, benefits under the Act and/or to make a complaint or inquiry. Accordingly, the Respondent contravened s.340 in relation to the Applicant. Because of the Respondent's contravention of s.340, the Applicant suffered loss of income and remained unemployed at the time of filing the statement of claim in these proceedings.

In summary - contraventions of civil remedy provisions

1. By reason of their acts and omissions in the preceding paragraphs, the Respondent has contravened civil remedy provisions ss.44, 45, 323, 340 and 536 of the Act.

1. The Applicant seeks the following relief in relation to their claims:

(a) Declarations pursuant to s.545(1) of the Act that the Respondent contravened each of the aforementioned civil remedy provisions;

(b) An order pursuant to s.545(1) of the Act that the Respondent pay compensation to the Applicant in respect of the loss and damage caused particularised in the application for default judgment as follows:

(i) $77.24 in respect of the minimum rate of pay under the Award;

(ii) $51.09 in respect of penalty rates under the Award;

(iii) $770.56 in respect of overtime rates under the Award;

(iv) $185.74 in respect of superannuation under the Award;

(v) $148.00 in respect of accrued untaken annual leave under the Act,

(c) An order pursuant to s.545(1) of the Act arising out of the adverse action taken against the Applicant for prohibited reason(s), particularised in the application for default judgement as:

(i) $4,541.49 in economic loss suffered between 12 July 2023 and 14 August 2023 (a period of four weeks and three working days), calculated at 40 hours of work per week and the minimum rates of pay under the Award; and

(ii) $2,000.00 in general damages.

(d) An order pursuant to s.546(1) of the Act and within 60 days the Respondent pay pecuniary penalties fixed in the amount of $20,000.00 for the declared contraventions of civil remedy provisions under the Act.

(e) An order pursuant to s.547(2) of the Act that the Respondent pay interest to the Applicant owed on the amounts ordered for compensation, economic and non-economic loss, to be calculated at the applicable pre-judgement interest rate prescribed by the Federal Court of Australia.

(f) Such further or other order the Court deems appropriate.

1. On 15 September 2023, the Applicant commenced these proceedings by filing an application in the Fair Work Division of this Court. At that time there were 2 named respondents, the Respondent company and an individual claimed to have been an employee, manager and/or agent of the Respondent.
2. On 24 October 2023, a Registrar of the Court convened a directions hearing at which there was no appearance for or on behalf of the Respondent. The Registrar made orders on that day which, among other things:

(a) required that the Respondent file and serve a notice of address for service by 27 October 2023; and

(b) included a notation in terms that Counsel for the Applicant had advised the Court that they had been in contact with a Mr Zaferan Asir, the sole director of the Respondent, and Mr Asir was aware of the proceeding.

1. On 31 October 2023, a Registrar of the Court convened a further directions hearing at which there was no appearance for or on behalf of the Respondent. The Registrar made orders on that day which, among other things:

(a) required that the Respondent file and serve a defence by 30 January 2024;

(b) ordered that, in the event of non-compliance with the requirement that the Respondent file and serve a defence by 30 January 2024, any application for default judgement and material in support be filed by 13 February 2024 and be referred to a Judge for determination;

(c) ordered that the application proceed by way of statement of claim, and be heard and determined together with 2 related matters in MLG1593/2023 and MLG1596/2023, so that evidence in one matter be received as evidence in the other.

1. The Respondent did not file and serve a notice of address for service by 27 October 2023.
2. On 28 November 2023, the Applicant filed a statement of claim.
3. The Respondent did not file a notice of address for service by 27 October 2023 or a defence by 30 January 2024 and the Applicant did not file an application for default judgement by 13 February 2024.
4. On 20 June 2024, the proceedings were discontinued as against the individual formerly named as second Respondent by order of a Registrar of the Court.
5. On 25 June 2024, the Applicant lodged an application in a proceeding seeking default judgment against the Respondent accompanied by an affidavit of Wallace Huang deposed on 24 June 2024. The Applicant sought leave to have the application filed notwithstanding it did not strictly comply with the 24 October 2023 orders.
6. The interlocutory application for default judgement was subsequently programmed for hearing by which the parties were required to file an outline of submissions and any affidavit material on which they respectively sought to rely. The programming orders were required to be served on the Respondent and included a notation that non-compliance with the directions of the Court may result in determination of the application pursuant to r.13.05 of the Rules.
7. On behalf of the Applicant, an outline of written submissions was filed on 19 November 2024. Subsequently, the Court received 3 affidavits of a Wallace Huang and 1 affidavit of a Shannen Bethune evidencing service on the Respondent at its registered business address according to an ASIC Company Extract in evidence of the following documents: the Applicant's outline of submissions filed 19 November 2024; orders of Registrar Hird dated 24 October 2023; orders of Registrar Hird dated 31 October 2023; the Applicant's consolidated statement of claim; orders of Registrar Hird dated 24 October 2023; orders of Registrar Hird dated 31 October 2023; orders of Registrar Edwards dated 20 June 2024; orders of Judge Mansini dated 11 November 2024; emails from the Court, specifically the notice of listing, dated 11 November 2024; and orders of Judge Mansini dated 10 December 2024.
8. No materials were filed by the Respondent in accordance with Court orders or as at the time of hearing on 10 December 2024.
9. On 10 December 2024, the matter proceeded to hearing before the Court as presently constituted. On that occasion, the Applicant was represented by Counsel and there was no appearance for or on behalf the Respondent. Being satisfied that the Respondent was properly on notice of the fact of the proceedings and afforded substantial opportunity to participate and to understand the consequences of failure to do so, the hearing proceeded in default of the Respondent pursuant to r.13.06(1)(e) of the Rules.
10. Materials filed in respect of this application were in the most part combined with that filed in the two related matters. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court directed that the Applicant file a supplementary document identifying the pleadings in respect of the Applicant as a stand alone case and that a copy of those orders be served on the Respondent. On 31 January 2025, the Applicant filed a supplementary document which is appropriately characterised as an aide to the Court and did not change the substance of the orders and relief sought in any way.
11. For completeness, in the time since judgement was reserved and at the time of publishing these reasons, it remained the case that the Respondent had not filed any materials or communicated with the Court in accordance with Court orders or at all.

1. To the extent necessary, I am minded to grant the Applicant's request for leave to accept the late filing of the default judgement application on the basis that the Respondent has since had ample opportunity to address the Court about any opposition to it but has not done so. Further, at this stage of the proceedings, the grant of such leave will achieve a just resolution of the dispute in the most inexpensive and efficient way possible in the present case - consistent with the overarching purpose at s.190 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) (FCFCOA Act) pursuant to r.1.04 of the Rules.
2. Where a respondent is in default and the Court has ordered that the proceeding continue on pleadings, the Court has a broad discretion to give judgement against the respondent: r.13.05(2)(d) of the Rules. The Court was taken to authority for the proposition that the Court will be "satisfied that it is appropriate to give default judgment if the originating process and subsequent written notifications of the Court were served on the relevant respondent, a default judgment application against the respondent has been made, each element of the relief claimed in the default judgment application was leaded in the statement of claim, and the relief claimed is appropriate": Engineered Thermal Systems Pty Limited v Salmon, In the Matter of Salmon & Speck Pty Ltd (In Liq) [2012] FCA 1159 (Foster J). It is well established that, in being so satisfied, the Court does not require proof by way of evidence: Arthur v Vaupotic Investments Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 433 (Heerey J) at [3], cited in Luna Park v Bose [2006] FCA 94 (Jacobson J) at [20].
3. The Court has received evidence that the Respondent has been served with the originating process, statement of claim, application for default judgement and Court orders including directions with which the Respondent was to comply. Despite this, as will be apparent from the procedural context, the Respondent's default since commencement of the proceedings is extensive and includes: non-compliance with two separate Court orders to file a notice of address for service and file a defence to the claim; non-compliance with directions of the Court to file materials in relation to the default judgement application; non-appearance at 3 procedural hearings before the Court; and non-appearance at the interlocutory hearing of the application for default judgement.
4. The power to grant default judgement is discretionary, to be exercised with caution. I am satisfied that the application has been made appropriately and in accordance with the Rules. The Applicant is not required to prove by way of evidence the claim which is sought to be advanced, but the Court does have to be satisfied on the face of the statement of claim that the Applicant appears entitled to the relief claimed. I am satisfied that the statement of claim filed on behalf of the Applicant complies with the rules of pleading and properly pleads the various causes of action. The Respondent has elected not to engage with these proceedings at all. Absent their participation, the Court does not need to descend into speculation as to the possible defences that might have been available had the Respondent so participated. In any event, none is obvious on the face of the materials before the Court.
5. Having regard to the matters above, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to enter default judgment against the Respondent on the basis of the defaults outlined above. I am satisfied that there is a claim for relief that remains unsatisfied, and that the Court has jurisdiction to grant the relief. Accordingly, I will make orders that default judgement be entered against the Respondent.
6. The Court has a broad discretion to make a declaration: s.141 FCFCOA Act. In all of the circumstances, I consider this an appropriate case for declaratory relief in relation to each determined contravention, if for no other reason than to record the Court's disapproval of the contravening conduct.
7. The Court also has the power to make orders for compensation of economic and non-economic loss that a person has suffered because of a contravention where the Court is satisfied that a person has contravened a civil remedy provision: s.545(1) and (2). Being satisfied that the Respondent has contravened multiple civil remedy provisions, and the Applicant has pleaded their loss by particulars of economic and non-economic loss, I am satisfied that the orders proposed by the Applicant's solicitor be made subject only to a clarification that compensation in respect of the Award or the Act is as the Applicant were so entitled (on the admissions the Respondent is, by its default, taken to have made) and to afford a slightly longer period of 42 days for paying having regard to the need for service of these orders on the Respondent.
8. It is appropriate that there be interest on the compensation and general damages amounts, calculated at the Federal Court of Australia's pre-judgment interest rate applying at the date of the Court's Order.
9. Having regard to the seriousness of the matter, and in all of the circumstances, it is appropriate that the Respondent be afforded further opportunity to consider, prepare and file written evidence and submissions as to the questions of what, if any, pecuniary penalty(ies) ought be imposed for the contraventions. A program will be ordered so that the parties may address the Court about those matters.
10. Not having entered an appearance or otherwise participated in the proceedings, it will necessarily be ordered that the Applicant serve a copy of the Court's orders on the Respondent within 7 days of the Court's orders.

1. The above reasons explain the declarations and orders of the Court.
2. The matter of what if any pecuniary penalty(ies) be ordered will be programmed for further hearing.

I certify that the preceding sixty-one (61) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Mansini.