Fair Work Ombudsman v Angel

Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order for various reasons including where necessary to remedy clerical errors, accidental slips or omissions (r 24.04 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth)).

1. On 28 January 2026, the Court made the following Declarations and Orders:

THE COURT DECLARES THAT:

1. Upon the admissions which the respondent is taken to have made, consequent upon default pursuant to r 5.09 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Rules (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth) (FCFCOA Rules), the Court declares that the respondent contravened:

(a) section 716(5) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) by failing to comply with the compliance notice with respect to Mr Dalton Law (Mr Law), given to the respondent by Fair Work Inspector Davies on 30 August 2023 pursuant to s 716 of the FW Act (Compliance Notice); and

(b) section 536(1) of the FW Act by failing to give Mr Law a pay slip within one working day of making payment to Mr Law in relation to the performance of work.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Pursuant to ss 545(1) and 545(2)(d) of the FW Act, within 28 days of this order the respondent take steps to comply with the Compliance Notice by:

(a) calculating and paying to the applicant the outstanding amounts he was required to pay to Mr Law under the Compliance Notice (Outstanding Amount);

(b) calculating and paying any additional superannuation contributions on the Outstanding Amount into Mr Law's nominated superannuation fund;

(c) preparing and producing to the applicant a schedule outlining his calculation of the amounts outlined in paragraphs 2(a) and 2(b) above; and (d) providing the applicant with proof of payment of the amounts outlined in paragraphs 2(a) and 2(b) above.

1. Pursuant to s 547(2) of the FW Act, within 28 days of this order, the respondent pay interest to the applicant at the applicable prejudgment interest rate, as prescribed by the Federal Court of Australia from time to time, on the Outstanding Amount.
2. The applicant distribute to Mr Law the amounts paid to the applicant in accordance with order 2(a) and order 3 within 28 days of the date payment is made to the applicant.

THE COURT NOTES THAT:

1. These orders have been amended pursuant to rule 24.04(g) and rule 24.04(h) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth).

1. By an outline of submissions filed by the Fair Work Ombudsman (applicant or FWO) on 27 January 2026, the applicant seek orders pursuant to s 546(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) that Stuart James Angel (respondent) pay a pecuniary penalty to the Commonwealth for the contraventions of ss 716(5) and 536(1) of the FW Act.
2. Accordingly, my reasons in this judgment largely concern the question of penalty.

1. The background to this matter is helpfully summarised in the outline of submissions on penalties filed by the applicant on 27 January 2026.

1. The applicant is, and was at all relevant times, a regulator who has standing to bring these proceedings in accordance with s 539(2) of the FW Act.
2. The respondent, at all relevant times, operated a business that provided car smash repair work services.[1]

1. In or around May 2022, the applicant commenced an investigation into the respondent's employment of Mr Dalton Law (Mr Law).[2] Mr Law was employed on a full-time basis in the period between 18 August 2018 and 12 April 2022 (Employment Period).[3]
2. Based on the information obtained during the investigation, FWI Davies formed a reasonable belief within the meaning of s 716(1) of the FW Act that the respondent had contravened the following clauses of the Vehicle Manufacturing, Repair, Services and Retail Award 2010 (2010 Award), the Vehicle Repair, Services and Retail Award 2020 (2020 Award) and the FW Act in respect of his employment of Mr Law during the Employment Period:

(a) clauses 33.4, 35.3(c) and 35.3(d) of the 2010 Award and cl 16.10(b) of the 2020 Award, by failing to pay Mr Law the minimum wage applicable to a full-time employee in accordance with Mr Law's classification;

(b) clause 29.9(a)(i) of the 2010 Award and cl 29.4(a)(i) of the 2020 Award by failing to pay Mr Law a leave loading of 17.5% on annual leave taken by Mr Law during the Employment Period;

(c) section 90(1) of the FW Act by failing to pay Mr Law at the applicable base rate of pay for ordinary hours of work during periods of paid annual leave taken by Mr Law during the Employment Period;

(d) section 90(2) of the FW Act by failing to make payment to Mr Law for accrued and untaken annual leave payable on termination of Mr Law's employment; and

(e) clause 15.3(a) of the 2010 Award and cl 13.3(a) of the 2020 Award by failing to reimburse Mr Law for the cost of two textbooks purchased by Mr Law in connection with his apprenticeship.[4]

1. On 30 August 2023, FWI Davies gave a Compliance Notice to the respondent, pursuant to s 716(2) of the FW Act.[5]
2. The Compliance Notice required the respondent, by 10 October 2023, to calculate and pay outstanding amounts due to Mr Law in respect of the contraventions referred to at paragraph [9] above and calculate and pay any additional superannuation contributions in respect of same and by 17 October 2023, produce reasonable evidence to the applicant of compliance.[6]
3. The respondent did not take the action specified in the Compliance Notice by 17 October 2023, or at all.[7]

1. During the period 13 September 2019 to 18 April 2022 (Pay Slip Contravention Period), the respondent made payments to Mr Law in relation to the performance of work. On each occasion the respondent failed to give Mr Law a pay slip within one working day of making payment to Mr Law, or at all.[8]

1. On 13 March 2025, the applicant commenced these proceedings. The procedural history in this matter is outlined in [22]-[49] of my default judgment: Fair Work Ombudsman v Angel [2026] FedCFamC2G 69, highlighting the respondent's failure to appear at:

(a) the First Court Date on 7 April 2025;

(b) the First Directions Hearing on 12 June 2025; and

(c) the Second Directions Hearing on 6 August 2025.

1. On 8 August 2025, the applicant filed an Application in a Proceeding for default judgment.
2. On 18 November 2025, this Court reserved judgment in respect of the applicant's interlocutory application seeking orders, including that:

(a) default judgment be entered for the applicant against the respondent;

(b) declarations be made that the respondent contravened ss 716(5) and 536(1) of the FW Act; and

(c) within 28 days, the respondent take certain steps to remedy the direct effects of the failure to comply with the Compliance Notice.

1. On 28 January 2026, the Court made Declarations and Orders for default judgment.
2. On 24 February 2026, the respondent failed to attend the hearing scheduled in relation to the issue of applicable penalties in this proceeding.

(a) Application and Statement of Claim (SOC) filed on 13 March 2025;

(b) Affidavit of service of Arlen James Tierney sworn 2 April 2025 (Tierney Affidavit);

(c) Affidavit of service of Jarret Towns deposed 7 May 2025 (Towns Affidavit);

(d) Affidavit of service of Alan John Griffin affirmed 3 September 2025 (Griffin Affidavit);

(e) Affidavits of Andrew John Davies, a Fair Work Inspector (FWI Davies), affirmed 23 January 2026 (First FWI Affidavit) and affirmed 6 March 2026 (Second FWI Affidavit); and

(f) Affidavits of service of Matthew James Gough affirmed 11 June 2025 (First Gough Affidavit), affirmed 8 August 2025 (Second Gough Affidavit), affirmed 15 October 2025 (Third Gough Affidavit) and affirmed 17 November 2025 (Fourth Gough Affidavit);

(g) Court Book filed by the applicant on 20 February 2026;

(h) Written Submissions filed by the applicant on 27 January 2026 and supplementary written submissions filed by the applicant on 6 March 2026.

1. Pursuant to s 546 of the FW Act, the Court may order a person to pay a pecuniary penalty which it considers appropriate if the Court is satisfied that the person has contravened a civil remedy provision. Sections 716(5) and 536(1) of the FW Act are civil remedy provisions: see s 539 of the FW Act.
2. The principles for determining such penalties are well settled. In Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson [2022] HCA 13; (2022) 274 CLR 450; HCA 13 (Pattinson), the High Court affirmed the existing factors that might contribute to an acceptable penalty range. These included the severity and scope of the misconduct, the harm caused, and the circumstances in which it occurred. However, the list provided in Pattinson, as noted by Burley J in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Booktopia Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 194 at [39], should not be viewed as a strict checklist; rather, it should be considered as factors that can guide the Court's assessment of the circumstances surrounding a contravention (see also, Pattinson at [19]).
3. The purpose of a civil penalty is (Pattinson at [9]):

primarily, if not solely, the promotion of the public interest in compliance with the provisions of the Act by the deterrence of further contraventions of the Act. ...

1. As Rares, Cowdroy and Griffiths JJ provided in Comcare v Post Logistics Australasia Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 168; (2012) 207 FCR 178; FCAFC 168 at [43], '[d]eterrence, both general and specific, is a fundamental purpose of the role of civil pecuniary penalties'. The purpose of civil penalties is to promote the public interest in compliance and attempt to put a price on a contravention that is sufficiently high to deter repetition by the contravener and by others who might be tempted to contravene the same legislation: see Commonwealth v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate [2015] HCA 46; (2015) 258 CLR 482; HCA 46 [55] and [110], citing Trade Practices Commission v CSR Ltd (1991) ATPR 41-076; FCA 521 (Trade Practices Commission) at [40]; see also Pattinson at [9] and [15]-[17]. To this end, the Court should fix a penalty that (Pattinson at [71]):

it considers fairly and reasonably to be appropriate to protect the public interest from future contraventions of the [FW Act].

1. In determining what is reasonably necessary to achieve specific and general deterrence, regard may be had to the non-exhaustive list of factors identified in Pattinson at [18]; citing Trade Practices Commission at 52, 152-53; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Employsure Pty Ltd [2023] FCAFC 5; (2023) 407 ALR 302; FCAFC 5 at [50] (Rares, Stewart and Abraham JJ).
2. However, these factors do not form a 'rigid catalogue of matters for attention': Pattinson at [19], citing Australian Ophthalmic Supplies Pty Ltd v McAlary-Smith [2008] FCAFC 8; (2008) 165 FCR 560; FCAFC 8 (Merringtons) at [91]. The Court has a broad discretion to assess the appropriate penalty, adopting an approach of 'instinctive synthesis': Merringtons at [27]-[28] (Gray J), [55] and [78] (Graham J).
3. Any penalty imposed should be fixed at a level that will not be regarded as 'an acceptable cost of doing business': see Pattinson at [17] citing Singtel Optus Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2012] FCAFC 20; (2012) 287 ALR 249; FCAFC 20 at [62] per Keane CJ, Finn and Gilmour JJ. The penalty should have a 'sting or burden' necessary to secure the specific and general deterrent effects that are the reason for its imposition: see Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (2018) 262 CLR 157; HCA 3 at [116] per Keane, Nettle and Gordon JJ.

1. Specific deterrence is directed towards ensuring that a contravener is not prepared to embark upon the risk of engaging in similar contravening conduct in the future: see Fair Work Ombudsman v AJR Nominees Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] FCA 128 at [50] per Gilmour J.

1. In order to be useful as a general deterrent, a penalty (Ponzio v B & P Caelli Constructions Pty Ltd [2007] FCAFC 65; (2007) 158 FCR 543; FCAFC 65 at [93] per Marshall, Lander and Jessup JJ; see also Fair Work Ombudsman v ADADN Pty Ltd [2021] FCCA 756 at [39]):

should be of a kind that it would be likely to act as a deterrent in preventing similar contraventions by like-minded persons or organisations.

Process for determining the appropriate penalty

1. In determining an appropriate penalty, general deterrence is a significant factor and the Courts consider its use 'important to send a clear signal to the community at large, and specifically to employers, regarding the importance of complying with Australian workplace laws': see Fair Work Ombudsman v Lifestyle SA Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1151 at [156].
2. Having regard to Bromwich J's judgment in Fair Work Ombudsman v NSH North Pty Ltd t/as New Shanghai Charlestown [2017] FCA 1301; (2017) 275 IR 148; FCA 1301 (NSH North) at [36], the process of determining the appropriate penalty, taking into account Pattinson, involves the following five steps:

(a) identify the separate contraventions involved;

(b) consider whether each of the contraventions constitute a single course of conduct within the meaning of s 557(1) of the FW Act;

(c) consider the extent to which two or more of the contraventions have common elements to ensure the penalties imposed for each contravention are an appropriate response to the conduct (that is, 'common law course of conduct');

(d) consider the appropriate penalty for each contravention or group of contraventions; and

(e) assess whether the overall penalty is an appropriate response to the conduct which led to the contraventions (that is, the 'totality principle'): see Kelly v Fitzpatrick [2007] FCA 1080; (2007) 166 IR 14; FCA 1080 (Kelly) at [30] per Tracey J; Merringtons at [23] per Gray J, [71] per Graham J, and [102] per Buchanan J.

1. The maximum penalties the Court may impose for contraventions of the FW Act are defined by reference to 'penalty units' within the meaning of s 4AA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).[9]
2. In October 2023, the value of a penalty unit was $313. Accordingly, the maximum penalty the Court can impose upon the respondent for the contravention of s 716(5) of the FW Act in these proceedings is $9,390.[10]
3. During the Pay Slip Contravention Period, the value of a penalty unit was $210 until 30 June 2020 and $222 from 1 July 2020. The applicant submits that it is appropriate to apply the higher penalty unit where the contraventions span a period where different penalty units applied, although the Court can take into account that the lower amount applied for part of the period: see Fair Work Ombudsman v Grouped Property Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] FCA 557 at [396]- [398] and [401]. I accept that submission. Accordingly, the maximum penalty the Court may impose upon the respondent for a contravention of s 536(1) of the FW Act in these proceedings is $13,320.[11]

1. This proceeding involves contraventions by the respondent of ss 716(5) and 536(1) of the FW Act.
2. Section 557(1) of the FW Act provides that, for specified contraventions, two or more contraventions of a civil remedy provision will be treated as a single contravention if the contravention was committed by the same person and arose out of the same course of conduct. Section 557(1) of the FW Act does not apply to contraventions of s 716(5) of the FW Act,[12] however, there is only a single contravention of s 716(5) of the FW Act by the respondent in these proceedings.
3. Insofar as the respondent contravened s 536(1) of the FW Act by failing to provide a pay slip to Mr Law within one working day on each occasion he made a payment to Mr Law in relation to the performance of work during the period from 13 September 2019 to 18 April 2022,[13] the applicant submits that the respondent is entitled to the benefit of s 557 of the FW Act, such that the contraventions are taken to constitute a single contravention. I accept that submission.

1. In determining the appropriate penalties to be imposed, the factors set out below are most relevant.

1. In the present case, I identify the following features relevant to the assessment of specific deterrence:

(a) the respondent continues to hold a registered Australian Business Number.[14] While it is acknowledged that the respondent's business name was cancelled as of 8 May 2025, and it is unclear whether he is still trading,[15] the respondent has not provided any evidence or otherwise indicated that he is not continuing to operate his business and employ staff;

(b) the respondent demonstrated a lack of concern for his obligations under the FW Act and has failed to participate in these proceedings (discussed further at 'Nature, circumstances and deliberateness of the conduct' and **'**Corrective action, contrition and cooperation' below); and

(c) the respondent has not demonstrated any meaningful intention to take the steps required by the Compliance Notice.

1. In the present case, I note that general deterrence is a significant consideration given the importance of compliance notices as an enforcement tool and a means of holding employers to account. General deterrence is of particular importance in this matter given:

(a) the efficacy of statutory notices such as compliance notices will be hindered if recipients perceive that a failure to comply carries no meaningful consequences (discussed further at 'Minimum standards in relation to compliance notices' below);

(b) the respondent has ignored his obligations (as discussed in 'Nature, circumstances and deliberateness of the conduct' and **'**Corrective action, contrition and cooperation' below), and it is important that others be deterred from behaving in a similar manner; and

(c) the respondent is in the broader 'Automotive Body, Paint and Interior Repair nec' and 'Other Automotive Repair and Maintenance' sectors, in which there has been a moderate rate of requests for assistance made to the applicant.[16]

Nature, circumstances and deliberateness of conduct

1. At the hearing, I sought clarification from the applicant concerning an aspect of the evidentiary record relating to the alleged contravention of s 716(5) of the FW Act. A discrepancy existed as to the amount said to be owing to Mr Law, in that:

(a) a letter sent to the respondent by FWI Davies on 25 August 2023 contained an estimate of $29,735.13 (gross) as owing to Mr Law (2023 estimate);[17] and

(b) an email sent to the respondent by the FWO on 26 August 2025 contained an estimate of $29,530.13 as owing to Mr Law (2025 estimate).[18]

1. I queried the applicant as to the discrepancy between the two amounts and whether I should regard the 2025 estimate as a typographical error. Following the hearing, and by the Second FWI Affidavit, the applicant clarified that the discrepancy arose because the 2025 estimate failed to include the cost of two textbooks purchased by Mr Law totalling $205. The applicant confirmed that the 2023 estimate was the correct estimate. The Court is grateful to the applicant for that clarification.
2. Turing to the respondent's contravention of s 716(5) of the FW Act, I am satisfied that it occurred in circumstances where he was aware of the Compliance Notice and was given multiple opportunities to comply with it.
3. The respondent was personally served with the Compliance Notice on 30 August 2023 at the respondent's business address.[19] During the timeframe for compliance with the Compliance Notice, the applicant made seven attempts to engage with the respondent and his representative, Elizabeth Maguire,[20] and offered assistance to facilitate compliance.[21]
4. After the time for compliance with the Compliance Notice had passed, the applicant sent letters to the respondent on 18 October 2023 and 4 December 2024, providing him with further opportunities to rectify his non-compliance or provide a reasonable excuse, and indicated that the applicant may otherwise commence proceedings.[22] In addition to these letters, the applicant also made attempts by telephone to engage with Ms Maguire to facilitate the respondent's rectification, including inviting the respondent to propose a payment schedule.[23]
5. While the applicant afforded the respondent ample time and opportunities to comply with the Compliance Notice and avoid litigation, he failed to do so.
6. In the circumstances set out above, I find the respondent's failure to comply with the compliance notice was deliberate.
7. As a result, on 13 March 2025, the applicant commenced these proceedings to seek orders for compliance with the Compliance Notice and a civil penalty.

1. The respondent's failure to provide pay slips to the Employee should not be considered a mere administrative failure.
2. In this matter, Mr Law was employed on a full-time basis between the period 18 August 2018 to 12 April 2022.[24] On each occasion that a payment was made to Mr Law in relation to the performance of work during the Pay Slip Contravention Period,[25] the respondent failed to give Mr Law a pay slip within one working day of making those payments, or at all.
3. As a result of the respondent's failure to provide pay slips, Mr Law was prevented from monitoring his wages and ensuring he was being paid correctly.
4. As observed by White J in Fair Work Ombudsman v South Jin Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] FCA 832 at [55], accurate records allow:

...employees to understand how their pay is calculated and to obtain independent advice concerning their entitlements. They allow genuine mistakes or misunderstandings to be identified quickly and rectified.' In this way, the obligation of employers to issue pay slips is a significant adjunct to the enforcement of compliance with the requirements of industrial legislation and industrial awards.

Corrective action, contrition and cooperation

1. The applicant submits, and I accept, that no discount on penalty should be afforded for corrective action, contrition or cooperation.
2. As outlined above at 'Nature, circumstances and deliberateness of conduct: Contravention of s 716(5) of the FW Act', the respondent failed to comply with the Compliance Notice, despite being afforded ample opportunities to do so. As at the date of filing the submissions, the respondent has not provided any evidence he has taken the steps required by the Compliance Notice.[26]
3. The respondent has also failed to engage with these proceedings. Notwithstanding the applicant's continued attempts to engage with the respondent in relation to the proceedings,[27] the respondent failed to file the required documents with the Court, attend directions hearings on 7 April 2025, 12 June 2025 and 6 August 2025, and the interlocutory hearing in respect of the applicant's application for default judgment on 18 November 2025.
4. Relevantly, in Fair Work Ombudsman v Soma Kitchen Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] FCCA 2583 (Soma Kitchen) at [35] it was held that:

...the respondents' rather nonchalant approach to the Notice and their failure to participate in these proceedings [demonstrate] a complete disregard for their legal obligations.

1. Further, the respondent's dismissive statement upon being personally served with copies of this Court's orders dated 7 April 2025 and 29 April 2025,[28] together with his non-engagement in the proceedings, signals a disregard for Court processes, which heightens the need for specific deterrence in this matter.
2. The respondent only engaged with the applicant to a limited degree during the investigation conducted by the applicant. The conduct of the respondent in these proceedings resulted in the applicant unnecessarily expending resources in applying for default judgment against the respondent.
3. In Mornington Inn Pty Ltd v Jordan [2008] FCAFC 70; (2008) 168 FCR 383; FCAFC 70 (Mornington Inn) at [76], Stone and Buchanan JJ relevantly said:

... a discount should not be available simply because a respondent has spared the community the cost of a contested trial. Rather the benefit of such a discount should be reserved for cases where it can be fairly said that an admission of liability:

a) has indicated an acceptance of wrongdoing and a suitable and credible expression of regret; and/or

b) has indicated a willingness to facilitate the course of justice

1. The respondent's conduct in this matter has deprived Mr Law of the benefit of the action the respondent was required to take under the Compliance Notice. Mr Law's entitlements remain outstanding despite ceasing his employment with the respondent over three and a half years ago,[29] and over two years elapsing since the Compliance Notice required the respondent to take steps including calculating and paying outstanding entitlements to Mr Law.[30]
2. The failure to comply with a statutory notice also occasions a more public loss. The applicant submits that the legislature has set penalties for non-compliance with a compliance notice because a failure to comply will cause (as it has done in these proceedings) the workplace regulator to spend time and public funds dealing with civil remedy proceedings which would not have been required had compliance occurred: see Fair Work Ombudsman v Nobrace Centre Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2019] FCCA 2144 (Nobrace) at [19]; Fair Work Ombudsman v ASGBRIS Pty Ltd [2020] FCCA 553 at [36].
3. As observed by Kendall J in Soma Kitchen at [39], the loss occasioned by a failure to comply with a compliance notice is:

...the frustration and stultification of the statutory purpose behind s.716 of the Act...As noted above, the purpose of s.716 is to provide an alternative to litigation. That is, it is designed to prevent litigation. Litigation is timely and expensive. It is also not controversial that Court resources are limited and this Court actively promotes alternative resolution methods in order to reduce unnecessary expenditure. Here, that purpose has been systematically undermined.

1. In light of the consequences of the respondent's failure to comply with the Compliance Notice, it is important that others be deterred from behaving in a similar manner.

1. The applicant submits that damage was suffered by Mr Law as a result of the respondent's failure to issue pay slips as he was prevented from monitoring his wages and ensuring that he was being paid correctly. I find that submission has considerable force.

Minimum standards in relation to compliance notices

1. The power of a Fair Work Inspector to issue a compliance notice was included in the FW Act to provide a mechanism to address non-compliance with certain employment obligations arising under the FW Act, as an alternative to commencing litigation for each underlying contravention.[31]
2. This Court has consistently recognised that compliance notices provide a mechanism for the efficient and cost-effective rectification of identified contraventions of the FW Act, including underpayments to employees: see Nobrace at [19] (Blake J); Fair Work Ombudsman v Blu Hornsby Pty Ltd [2016] FCCA 1150 (Blu Hornsby) at [29] (Smith J).
3. If the respondent had complied with the Compliance Notice:

(a) the applicant would have been prevented from bringing civil remedy proceedings against him in respect of the underlying contraventions pursuant to s 716(4A) of the FW Act;

(b) the respondent would not be taken to have admitted to contravening or taken to have been found to have contravened the civil remedy provisions in respect of the underlying contraventions, pursuant to s 716(4B) of the FW Act; and

(c) the respondent would not have contravened s 716(5) of the FW Act.

1. This Court has recognised that a failure to comply with a statutory notice properly issued by the FWO is objectively serious conduct: see, e.g., Fair Work Ombudsman v Donence [2023] FedCFamC2G 32 at [48]. Failure to comply with a statutory notice is contrary to the public interest and undermines the enforcement framework established by the FW Act, and the safety net of minimum entitlements it is designed to protect: see Fair Work Ombudsman v Tester [2021] FCCA 771 (Tester) at [27]. There is a clear need for general deterrence of contravening conduct to promote compliance with statutory notices at an early stage and avoid unnecessary cost to the regulator and the Court in time, public funds and resources: see, e.g., Fair Work Ombudsman v Klinsic Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC2G 283 at [45].
2. I am of the view that the respondent's failure to comply with the Compliance Notice undermines the FW Act's enforcement framework and the safety net of entitlements it is designed to protect, and reflects a prioritisation of the respondent's own interests at the expense of Mr Law's minimum entitlements under the Award and the FW Act: see Tester at [27].
3. The failure to comply with a statutory notice properly issued by the FWO is serious: see Fair Work Ombudsman v VS Investment Group Pty Ltd [2013] FCCA 208 at [51]; Tester at [28]. The efficacy of statutory notices (such as Compliance Notices) will be hindered or made redundant if recipients perceive that a failure to comply carries no meaningful consequences: see Nobrace at [40].
4. Given the importance of a FWI's power to issue a compliance notice, and that compliance with such notices avoids the need for litigation or the imposition of any penalties, penalties for non-compliance should be set at a level which demonstrates there are serious consequences for failing to comply with a Compliance Notice. In doing so, the Court will deter other parties from failing to comply with Compliance Notices: see Blue Hornsby at [29].

1. This Court has also consistently recognised the need to ensure compliance with minimum standards in relation to record-keeping and pay slips: see, e.g., Fair Work Ombudsman v Touchpoint Media Pty Ltd [2018] FCCA 2615 at [14]; Fair Work Ombudsman v Bundaberg Security Pty Ltd [2014] FCCA 592; (2014) 241 IR 424; FCCA 592 at [26]. Failure to comply with those requirements has the potential to undermine minimum standards, as pay slips play a central role in the capacity of the FWO (as regulator) and employees to monitor and enforce compliance with minimum standards.
2. In Fair Work Ombudsman v Taj Tandoori Indian Restaurant Pty Ltd [2012] FMCA 258 at [67] (cited with approval in Fair Work Ombudsman v Tac Pham Pty Ltd [2020] FCCA 3036 at [138]) it was held that:

Proper pay slips allow employees to understand how their pay is calculated and therefore easily obtain advice. Pay slips provide the most practical check on false record keeping and underpayments, and allow for genuine mistakes or misunderstandings to quickly be identified. Without proper pay slips employees are significantly disempowered, creating a structure within which breaches of the industrial laws can be easily perpetrated.

Size and financial circumstances of the respondent

1. It is well established that the size and financial circumstances of an employer do not exculpate breaches of workplace laws, and that capacity to pay a penalty will be of less relevance than the objective of general deterrence: see Jordan v Mornington Inn Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1384; (2007) 166 IR 33; FCA 1384 at [99]; Mornington Inn.
2. That said, the size and financial circumstances of a respondent may be relevant considerations in determining a penalty where appropriate evidence is put forward, but needs to be weighed against the need for general deterrence: see Fair Work Ombudsman v Althaus Homes Pty Ltd [2021] FCCA 126 at [35]; New Shanghai at [105]-[106].
3. In the context of compliance notices, Jarrett J observed in Fair Work Ombudsman v Extrados Solutions Pty Ltd [2014] FCCA 815 that:

The obligation to comply with the Fair Work Act and, in particular, s.716 falls just as heavily on small corporations and small businesses - and individuals, for that matter - as it does on large employers or businesses. Put shortly, one cannot shirk one's responsibilities imposed by law simply because one might be described as a "small business" or because the business has a particular size. It is incumbent on all employers to comply with the requirements of the Fair Work Act.

1. In Kelly, Tracey J relevantly noted that the size of an employer is no excuse for a failure to comply with the FW Act and stated:

No less than large corporate employers, small businesses have an obligation to meet minimum employment standards and their employees, rightly, have an expectation that this will occur. When it does not it will, normally, be necessary to mark the failure by imposing an appropriate monetary sanction. Such a sanction "must be imposed at a meaningful level.

1. There is currently no evidence before the Court relating to the financial circumstances of the respondent. There are no records relating to the respondent on the National Personal Insolvency Index.[32] Further, the respondent is a registered owner of a property in New South Wales.[33] In any event, the applicant submits, and I accept, that the financial position of the respondent is no excuse for his failure to comply with the FW Act.
2. While the penalty imposed must not be crushing or oppressive, it must nevertheless bear relativity to the seriousness of the conduct engaged in by the respondent: Kelly at [30].

1. The applicant seeks orders under s 546(1) of the FW Act that the respondents pay pecuniary penalties for failing to comply with the Compliance Notice and failing to give Mr Law a pay slip within one working day of making payment to Mr Law in relation to the performance of work.
2. The applicant submits that it would be appropriate to impose penalties as follows:

(a) $7,512, being 80% of the maximum penalty for the respondent's contravention of s 716(5) of the FW Act; and

(b) $10,656, being 80% of the maximum penalty for the respondent's contravention of s 536(1) of the FW Act.

1. There is force in the applicant's submission in relation to the appropriate penalty for the s 716(5) contravention. The considerations outlined above indicate that a greater, rather than lesser, penalty is warranted to focus the attention of the respondent on the serious nature of his obligations and the importance of compliance. The penalty must be set at a level that achieves both specific and general deterrence. It should impress upon the respondent that compliance with statutory notices is not optional and that failure to engage meaningfully with the regulator will attract significant consequences. Equally, it must send a clear message to other employers that such conduct will not be tolerated. Compliance notices are a critical tool for ensuring adherence to minimum employment standards, and any failure to respond appropriately strikes at the heart of that system. The penalty imposed must therefore be sufficiently high to reinforce the authority of the FW Act and deter similar breaches in the future. On that basis, I accept the applicant's submission in relation to the quantum of the penalty to be imposed for he s 716(5) contravention.
2. In relation to the appropriate penalty for the s 536(1) contravention, I consider 75% of the maximum, namely $9,990, to be an appropriate penalty.
3. I am satisfied that no further adjustments are warranted, including on the basis of the totality principle.
4. Having regard to all of the matters above, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to impose the following penalties:

(a) $7,512, being 80% of the maximum penalty for the respondent's contravention of s 716(5) of the FW Act; and

(b) $9,990, being 75% of the maximum penalty for the respondent's contravention of s 536(1) of the FW Act.

1. I am further satisfied that it is appropriate the respondent pay the pecuniary penalties to the Commonwealth within 28 days after I pronounce orders.

1. Accordingly, I make the orders set out at the commencement of these reasons.

I certify that the preceding eighty-five (85) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Papadopoulos.

[1] Applicant's Statement of Claim filed 13 March 2025 (SOC) at [3], [5].

[2] SOC at [4]; Affidavit of Andrew John Davies affirmed 23 January 2026 (First FWI Affidavit) at [6].

[10] The maximum penalty for a contravention of s 716(5) of the FW Act is 30 penalty units for an individual: FW Act s 539(2); item 33; s 546(2)(a).

[11] The maximum penalty for a contravention of s 536(1) of the FW Act is 60 penalty units for an individual: FW Act s 539(2), item 29; s 546(2)(a).

[14] First FWI Affidavit at [27] and Annexure AD-15.

[15] First FWI Affidavit at [26] and Annexure AD-13.

[16] First FWI Affidavit at [29]-[30] and Annexure AD-17.

[19] SOC at [7]; First FWI Affidavit at [9]-[10] and [26] and Annexure AD-13.

[20] First FWI Affidavit at [7], [10] and [12]-[17] and Annexures AD-2, AD-3 and AD-4 to AD-7.

[21] First FWI Affidavit at [14] and Annexure AD-5.

[22] First FWI Affidavit at [19]-[20] and [22]-[23] and Annexures AD-8, AD-9, AD-11 and AD-12.

[23] First FWI Affidavit at [18] and [21] and Annexure AD-10.

[27] Applicant's Outline of Submissions on Default Judgement filed 15 October 2025 at [9] to [33]; First FWI Affidavit at [32].

[31] Fair Work Bill 2008, Explanatory Memorandum at [2673].

[32] First FWI Affidavit at [28] and Annexure AD-16.

[33] First FWI Affidavit at [26] and Annexure AD-14.