Fair Work Ombudsman v Canberra Electrical Solutions Pty Ltd [2026] FedCFamC2G 97

Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 24.04(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 24.04 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth).

1. The Fair Work Ombudsman ('the Applicant') commenced these proceedings on 5 June 2025, against the First Respondent, Canberra Electrical Solutions Pty Ltd and the Second Respondent, Mr Yildirim who is the sole director and shareholder of the First Respondent.
2. The proceedings related to contraventions of the Electrical, Electronic and Communications Contracting Award 2020 ('the Award') and s 90(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ('the Act') in respect of two employees of the First Respondent, Mr Haydari and Mr Danenbergsons.
3. On 27 September 2023, pursuant to s 716(2) of the Act, a Fair Work Inspector gave a compliance notice to the First Respondent in relation to Mr Haydari. The First Respondent failed to comply with the compliance notice.
4. On 7 December 2023, pursuant to s 716(2) of the Act, a Fair Work Inspector gave a compliance notice to the First Respondent in relation to Mr Danenbergsons. The First Respondent failed to comply with the compliance notice.
5. The Applicant alleged that the Second Respondent was involved in each of the contraventions pursuant to s 550(1) of the Act and had therefore contravened s 716(5) of the Act on each occasion.

1. The matter was listed for a Directions Hearing on 4 September 2025. As the First and Second Respondent had failed to appear or file an address for service, default judgment was entered and the following Declarations made:
   1. Upon admissions taken to have been made by reason of the default of the First Respondent and Second Respondent, that:
      1. the First Respondent contravened s 716(5) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ('the Act') by failing to comply with the compliance notice issued to it on 27 September 2023;
      2. the First Respondent contravened s 716(5) of the Act by failing to comply with the compliance notice issued to it on 7 December 2023; and
      3. the Second Respondent was involved, within the meaning of s 550(2) of the Act, in each of the contraventions by the First Respondent of s 716(5) of the Act declared at paragraph 1(a) and 1(b) above.

1. As a result of the First Respondent's contravention of the two compliance notices, the Applicant seeks orders pursuant to s 546(1) of the Act that the Respondents each pay pecuniary penalties for their contraventions of the Act.
2. The Applicant also seeks compensatory orders pursuant to s 545(1) of the Act requiring the First Respondent to pay the amounts it would have paid to:

(a) Mr Haydari in accordance with the First Compliance Notice; and

(b) Mr Danenbergsons in accordance with the Second Compliance Notice.

1. The Applicant was represented by counsel at the penalty hearing and there was no appearance by or on behalf of the First and Second Respondents.

1. The Applicant relied upon the following material:

(a) Application - Fair Work Division filed on 5 June 2025;

(b) Statement of Claim filed on 6 June 2025;

(c) Affidavit of Tauseed Ahmed filed on 27 August 2025;

(d) Affidavit of Tauseed Ahmed filed on 3 September 2025;

(e) Affidavit of Marilyn Sturgeon filed on 30 October 2025;

(f) Affidavit of Tauseed Ahmed filed on 4 December 2025;

(g) Outline of Submissions filed on 31 October 2025; and

(h) Supplementary Submissions filed on 1 December 2025.

1. No material has been filed on behalf of the First or Second Respondents.

1. In or about May 2023, following former employee Mr Mohammad Haydari's request for assistance, the Applicant commenced an investigation into Mr Haydari's employment with the First Respondent. Fair Work Inspector Marilyn Sturgeon ('FWI Sturgeon') had carriage of the investigation.
2. On 27 September 2023, FWI Sturgeon issued the First Compliance Notice to the First Respondent after forming a reasonable belief, for the purposes of s 716(1) of the Act, that it had contravened the Award and the National Employment Standards ('NES') in respect to Mr Haydari's employment. The First Compliance Notice required the First Respondent to calculate and pay any underpayment owing to Mr Haydari by 2 November 2023 and provide evidence of compliance to the Applicant by 9 November 2023.
3. Following a second request for assistance from another former employee, Mr Jack Danenbergsons, FWI Sturgeon completed a second investigation into the First Respondent's compliance with workplace laws in or around October 2023.
4. On 7 December 2023, FWI Sturgeon issued the Second Compliance Notice to the First Respondent after forming a reasonable belief, for the purposes of s 716(1) of the Act, that it had contravened the Award and the NES in respect of Mr Danenbergsons' employment. The Second Compliance Notice required the First Respondent to calculate and pay any underpayment owing to Mr Danenbergsons by 11 January 2024 and provide evidence of compliance to the Applicant by 18 January 2024.
5. The First Respondent did not comply with the Compliance Notices and, to date, has not taken all steps required by the Compliance Notices.

(a) Pursuant to s 546(1) of the Act that each of the Respondents pay pecuniary penalties for their contraventions of the Fair Work Act; and

(b) Pursuant to s 545(1) of the Act the First Respondent take steps to remedy their non-compliance with the Compliance notices by repaying amounts owed to Mr Mohammad Haydari and Mr Jack Danenbergsons respectively.

1. The Court may impose penalties pursuant to s 546 of the Act if it is satisfied that a person has contravened a civil penalty provision.
2. The maximum penalty the Court may impose in the instant case against the First Respondent is $46,950 for each contravention of s 716(5) of the Act (that is, 150 penalty units at $313 per unit).
3. The maximum penalty the Court may impose against the Second Respondent is $9,390 for each contravention of s 716(5) of the Act (that is, 30 penalty units at $313 per unit).
4. The maximum penalty unit amounts referred to above are based on the unit amount applicable at the time of the contraventions, being as at 2 November 2023, for the First Compliance Notice and 11 January 2024 for the Second Compliance Notice.

1. The primary, if not exclusive, objective of imposing a civil penalty for contravention of a civil remedy provision in the Act, is the promotion of the public interest in compliance by discouraging, or deterring, future contraventions of the Act of a like kind, both by the instant contravener and by others: see Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson [2022] HCA 13; (2022) 274 CLR 450 at [9] ('Pattinson'). In determining a penalty, the Court must have regard both to the impact of the penalty upon the respondent, and other employers who may be issued a compliance notice.
2. The maximum penalty is a relevant consideration but "does not constrain the exercise of the discretion under s 546 ... beyond requiring 'some reasonable relationship between the theoretical maximum and the final penalty imposed'" (Pattinson at [55]).
3. A penalty should not be so low as to be capable of being regarded by the contravener as the mere cost of doing business (Pattinson at [17]; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 640; [2013] HCA 54 at [66]; Singtel Optus Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2012) 287 ALR 249; [2012] FCAFC 20 at [62]). Equally, the penalty should not be so great as to be of oppressive severity.
4. The Court is required to make an objective assessment of the gravity and seriousness of the offending for which a penalty is sought, having regard to all relevant factual circumstances.
5. The considerations deemed relevant to this task include:

(1) the nature and extent of the conduct which led to the breach;

(2) the circumstances in which the conduct took place;

(3) the nature and extent of any loss or damage sustained as a result of the breach;

(4) whether there has been similar previous conduct by the respondent;

(5) whether the breach was properly distinct or arose out of one course of conduct;

(6) the size of the business enterprise involved;

(7) whether or not the breach was deliberate;

(8) the involvement of senior management in the breach;

(9) whether the party committing the breach has shown contrition;

(10) whether the party committing the breach has taken corrective action;

(11) whether the party committing the breach has cooperated with enforcement authorities;

(12) the need to ensure compliance with minimum standard by provision of an effective means for investigation and enforcement of employee entitlements; and

(13) the need for specific and general deterrence (See: Trade Practices Commission v CSR Ltd (1991) ATPR 41-076 at [42] ('CSR'); see also Pattinson at [18]; Kelly v Fitzpatrick [2007] FCA 1080 at [14] ('Kelly').

1. In Pattinson, at [19] the High Court reiterated that this list should not be treated a checklist.

1. The Court may have regard to the character of the contravention as well as the conduct of the contravener.
2. In this case, the Applicant made efforts to engage with the Respondents to procure compliance with the Compliance Notices prior to commencing litigation in this Court.
3. In respect of the First Compliance Notice, the First Respondent completed calculations but then failed to rectify the underpayments. It subsequently failed to engage with the Applicant at all.
4. In respect of the Second Compliance Notice, the First Respondent did not engage with the Applicant at all.
5. In the affidavit of Mr Ahmed filed on 3 September 2025, at [16] and annexure [TA-16], evidence is given about a telephone call with the Second Respondent, Mr Yildirim, in which he confirmed receipt of the application and correspondence sent on behalf of the Applicant. Mr Ahmed's evidence is that he informed the Second Respondent about his obligations under the compliance notices, the need to attend the hearing on 4 September 2025, and that the Applicant would consider any settlement proposal and any personal circumstances or hardship he wanted the Applicant to consider.
6. The Second Respondent informed Mr Ahmed of some personal difficulties he was facing in that he was going through a separation from his wife but otherwise did not put any material before the Court to explain, exculpate or mitigate his or the First Respondent's conduct. In fact, the First and Second Respondents have not engaged in the proceedings at all.

1. It was submitted on behalf of the Applicant that the First Respondent's failure to comply with the Compliance Notices caused loss to its two employees. If there had been compliance with the Compliance Notices, the employees would have received payment of entitlements for work they had performed on behalf of the First Respondent company.
2. Additionally, the failure to comply with the Compliance Notices has resulted in unnecessary public expenditure through the Applicant having to bring proceedings to enforce the liability in Court.
3. In Fair Work Ombudsman v Soma Kitchen & Anor (No.2) [2020] FCCA 2583 ('Soma') at [39] the Court stated:

... 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. The compliance notice regime provides a mechanism whereby employers can remedy contraventions of the Act on a without admissions basis, and without the risk of further enforcement action against them.
2. In circumstances where an employer has failed to avail itself of this opportunity resulting in unnecessary costs to the regulator, in the Court's view, a penalty is warranted.

Importance of Ensuring Compliance with Minimum Standards

1. It was submitted on behalf of the Applicant that the legislature has set substantial maximum penalties for contraventions of the Act, which demonstrates the importance Parliament places on employers complying with their minimum obligations.
2. The Applicant also referred to one of the principal objects of the Act in s 3(b)(ca), which is the preservation of an effective safety net of employee entitlements and effective enforcement mechanisms.
3. It was further submitted that the failure to comply with the Compliance Notices undermines the objects of the Act and frustrates the statutory purpose of s 716.
4. I accept the submissions of the Applicant and that it is important that non-compliance is met with serious and meaningful consequences (See Fair Work Ombudsman v Gothic Downs Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC2G 359 at [44]- [46]).

... 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. No evidence was put before the Court by the Respondents as to any financial hardship that might mitigate a penalty.

1. Counsel for the Applicant referred the Court to an industry profile report which was Exhibit MS-24 to the affidavit of FWI Sturgeon filed on 30 October 2025, that shows that the electrical services industry was the ninth-highest industry for requests for assistance from the ombudsman, and that there is also a disproportionate representation of apprentices in the electrical services industry who seek assistance from the ombudsman, compared to the average.
2. It was therefore submitted that deterrence was of particular importance in the electrical services industry and that there is accordingly a need to deter the Respondents from engaging in contravening conduct in the future.
3. I accept the Applicant's submissions in this regard and place weight on the disproportionate representation of apprentices in the relevant industry seeking assistance of the Applicant due to unpaid entitlements.
4. As at the date of hearing, the First Respondent, Canberra Electrical Solutions Pty Ltd was a registered corporation, and the Second Respondent remained the sole director and shareholder. Therefore, there remains a risk that it may employ staff and breach workplace laws in the future.
5. Accordingly, I conclude that it is necessary to impose a serious and meaningful penalty to ensure the First and Second Respondents comply with the legislative scheme in the future.

1. The Applicant submitted that it is appropriate to impose penalties in the mid-to-high range on the Respondents in the following amounts:

(a) a penalty of $28,170 to $32,865 (60% to 70% of the maximum) be imposed on the First Respondent in respect of its contravention of section 716(5) of the Fair Work Act by failing to comply with the First Compliance Notice;

(b) a penalty of $5,634 to $6,573 (60% to 70% of the maximum) be imposed on the Second Respondent, Mr Yildirim in respect of his involvement in the First Respondent's contravention in respect of the First Compliance Notice;

(c) a penalty of $28,170 to $32,865 (60% to 70% of the maximum) be imposed on the First Respondent in respect of its contravention of section 716(5) of the Fair Work Act by failing to comply with the Second Compliance Notice; and

(d) a penalty of $5,634 to $6,573 (60% to 70% of the maximum) be imposed on the Second Respondent, Mr Yildirim in respect of his involvement in the First Respondent's contravention in respect of the Second Compliance Notice.

1. This would result in total aggregate penalties in the following amounts:

(a) a total aggregate penalty of $56,340 to $65,730 (60% to 70% of the maximum) on the First Respondent company; and

(b) a total aggregate penalty of $11,268 to $13,146 (60% to 70% of the maximum) on the Second Respondent.

1. It was submitted on behalf of the Applicant that in this instance, it was not appropriate to group the penalties together because the contraventions were separate and distinct from each other in terms of the underlying conduct, but also in terms of the Contravention Notices themselves.

1. The Court must ensure that it does not impose a penalty that is unreasonably oppressive.
2. The Court has already found that the First Respondent contravened s 716(5) of the Act by failure to comply with the two Compliance Notices and that the Second Respondent was involved, within the meaning of s 550(2) of the Act, in each of the contraventions.
3. The Court has not been made aware of any prior offending by the First Respondent.
4. The Court has no information before it as to the First or Second Respondent's financial circumstances and they have made no effort to mitigate their conduct. Accordingly, the Court has no information before it that would justify a discount on penalty.
5. The Applicant seeks penalties against the First Respondent for each contravention of 60% to 70% of the maximum penalty.
6. As there have been two established contraventions, I consider it appropriate to impose a penalty against the First Respondent of 65% of the maximum for each contravention of s 716(5) of the Act.
7. The Applicant seeks penalties against the Second Respondent who is the sole director of the company for each contravention of 60% to 70% of the maximum penalty.
8. As the Second Respondent has been found to be involved in each of the contraventions within the meaning of s 550(2) of the Act, I consider it appropriate to impose a penalty against the Second Respondent of 65% of the maximum for each contravention of s 716(5) of the Act.

1. This means that the following amounts are payable:

(a) a penalty of $30,517.50 be paid by Canberra Electrical Pty Ltd in respect of its contravention of s 716(5) of the Fair Work Act by failing to comply with the First Compliance Notice relating to Mr Haydari;

(b) a penalty of $30,517.50 be paid by Canberra Electrical Pty Ltd in respect of its contravention of s 716(5) of the Fair Work Act by failing to comply with the Second Compliance Notice relating to Mr Danenbergsons;

(c) a penalty of $6,103.50 be paid by Mr Tayfun Yildirim in respect of his involvement in the First Respondent's contravention of s 716(5) of the Fair Work Act by failing to comply with the First Compliance Notice relating to Mr Haydari; and

(d) a penalty of $6,103.50 be paid by Mr Tayfun Yildirim in respect of his involvement in the First Respondent's contravention of s 716(5) of the Fair Work Act by failing to comply with the Second Compliance Notice relating to Mr Danenbergsons.

1. The total penalty amount payable by Canberra Electrical Pty Ltd is $61,035 to be paid within 28 days of the date of this judgment to the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Commonwealth.
2. The total penalty amount payable by Mr Tayfun Yildirim is $12,207 to be paid within 28 days of the date of this judgment to the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Commonwealth.

1. The Applicant seeks orders pursuant to s 545(1) of the Act requiring the First Respondent to pay the amounts it would have paid to:

(a) Mr Haydari in accordance with the First Compliance Notice; and

(b) Mr Danenbergsons in accordance with the Second Compliance Notice.

1. Prior to the hearing of this matter, there had been conflicting judgments of this Court as to whether orders for compensation can be made where a breach of s 716(5) of the Act has been established.
2. Since then, two decisions of the Federal Court have established that the Court has the power to make orders for compensation under s 545 of the Act in respect of a contravention of s 716(5) of the Act if it is appropriate and there would be utility in doing so and provided that the loss is established to the requisite standard: Fair Work Ombudsman v Taing [2025] FCA 1401 ('Taing') and Luong v Fair Work Ombudsman [2025] FCA 1400 ('Luong').
3. However, Taing and Luong did not address the specific circumstances where a Court enters default judgment against a respondent in respect of a contravention of s 716(5) of the Act, and how, in such circumstances, the Court may be satisfied that it is appropriate for compensation orders to be made under s 545 of the Act.
4. Rule 5.11 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (and r 5.23(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (FCA Rules)) each operate such that judgment on default does not require proof of the claim by evidence, only that there is a claim for the relief on the face of the statement of claim: see Kazal v Thunder Studios Inc (California) [2023] FCAFC 174 ('Kazal') at [212].
5. In Kazal at [224], Wheelahan J (with whom Wigney and Abraham JJ agreed) stated that r 5.23(2) of the FCA Rules operates independently (of the rules concerning pleadings) to empower the Court to grant relief.
6. The Applicant must demonstrate, on the face of the statement of claim, a claim for relief sought and that the Court has jurisdiction to grant that relief. The requirement that the Court be satisfied that the applicant is entitled to relief does not require proof by way of evidence of the applicant's claim (although evidence may be adduced): Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Dataline Net AU Pty Ltd (2006) 236 ALR 665, [2006] FCA 1427 at [44]; Yeo v Damos Earthmoving Pty Ltd, in the matter of Beachwood Developments Pty Ltd (in liq) [2011] FCA 1129 at [9].
7. There is an onus on the Applicant to demonstrate a causal connection to the loss and that the orders sought are appropriate.
8. In the case of Fair Work Ombudsman v Clark Projects Pty Ltd [2025] FedCFamC2G 24, Her Honour Judge Doust followed the approach set out in Kazal and observed at [66]:

... To the extent there is some doubt that the compensation sought in the present matter reflects the true measure of the respondent's liability, such doubt is inescapable where judgment is given by default pursuant to r 13.05(2)(c) for the relief to which the applicant appears entitled on the statement of claim. That doubt is "managed", within the [Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) General Federal Law Rules 2021 (Cth)], by the capacity of a party against whom default judgment is given to move the Court pursuant to r 17.05(2) to have judgment set aside. The requirement in a statement of claim for a solicitor's certificate also provides the Court some confidence that there is a proper and provable basis for the claim that has been advanced.

1. I am satisfied having regard to the authorities referred to above, that the Court can make an order for compensation following the non-compliance of the First Respondent with the two Compliance Notices, in breach of s 716(5) of the Act.
2. In these proceedings, as the requirements for the entry of default judgment have been made out, I am also satisfied there has been a loss to Mr Haydari and Mr Danenbergsons respectively under the Compliance Notices and that compensation orders for that loss under section 545(2) are "appropriate", because there is a claim clearly and discretely pleaded on the face of the Statement of Claim.
3. The Statement of Claim clearly sets out the underpaid amounts that were payable to each of the employees and were calculated by the Applicant having regard to the hours worked, the paid totals and bank statements and other collateral information from the employees.
4. The First Respondent has been on notice for a considerable period of time of the quantum outstanding to the two employees and has taken no steps in the proceedings since they commenced on 5 June 2025.
5. In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that it is appropriate for the Court to order payment of compensation in the amounts sought in the statement of claim. I am also satisfied that it is appropriate to make orders requiring the First Respondent to calculate and pay additional superannuation contributions on the underpaid amounts as required by clause 19.2 of the Award to Mr Haydari's nominated superannuation fund and to Mr Danenbergson's nominated superannuation fund.
6. The Applicant also seeks interest on the outstanding amounts at the pre-judgment interest rate to the date of the penalty hearing and the making of orders for compensation.
7. I will therefore order the payment of interest at the Federal Court rate on the underpayment amounts owing to Mr Haydari for the period from 2 November 2023 to the date of judgment in the amount of $788.81 and on the underpayment amounts owing to Mr Danenbergsons for the period from 11 January 2024 to the date of judgment in the amount of $403.36.
8. The Applicant has sought that the compensation and interest amounts be made payable to the Applicant rather than to each employee, such that in the event of non-payment by the First Respondent, the Applicant, being the Fair Work Ombudsman has the ability to bring an application for enforcement.
9. I am satisfied having regard to the decision in Fair Work Ombudsman v Northcoast Security Services Group Pty Ltd (No 3) [2020] FCCA 521 that it is appropriate in the present circumstances for payment to be made to the regulator as otherwise, the employees would be put to the further expense of having to take legal action to enforce the orders I intend making.

1. For all the reasons contained herein, I make Orders in the above terms accordingly.

I certify that the preceding eighty-two (82) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Leishman.