Fair Work Ombudsman v Marsdon Pether Trading as FTP Construction [2025] FedCFamC2G 1885

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. Before the Court is an application for remedial orders and pecuniary penalties in respect of a sole trader and an employee authorised to conduct the business, consequent upon their admitted failures to comply with a statutory compliance notice and provide employees with a pay slip within one working day of payment.
2. These reasons address the appropriate relief to be ordered for the Respondents' declared contraventions.

1. These proceedings were initiated on 11 July 2024, by way of originating application and statement of claim, against the First Respondent as sole trader and Second Respondent operating the business on their behalf. The pleadings articulated contraventions of ss.716(5) and 536 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act), for which the Second Respondent was plead to be accessorily liable on account of his involvement pursuant to s.550 of the Act.
2. On 25 and 30 October 2024, the Respondents respectively filed defences by which they admitted to each of the pleaded contraventions. Those admissions were subsequently confirmed at a directions hearing before the Court following which programming orders were made in respect of the relief sought.
3. Accordingly, on 5 December 2024, the Court made declarations as to the pleaded contraventions (detailed further below).
4. On 8 September 2025, a hearing as to relief was adjourned due to technical difficulties on the part of the Second Respondent. There was no appearance for or by the First Respondent.
5. On 9 October 2025, the matter proceeded to final hearing. The Applicant was represented by a solicitor advocate, the Second Respondent appeared in person and there was no appearance for or by the First Respondent.

1. The Applicant filed the following materials on which it sought to rely in respect of the relief sought:

(a) Originating Application and Statement of claim filed on 11 July 2024;

(b) Affidavit of Fair Work Inspector Meg Dalkin affirmed 22 January 2025 and filed 24 January 2025;

(c) Outline of Submissions filed on 24 January 2025;

(d) Outline of Submissions in Reply filed on 4 August 2025;

(e) Affidavit of Fair Work Inspector Meg Dalkin filed on 3 September 2025; and

(f) Affidavit of Fair Work Inspector Meg Dalkin filed on 8 October 2025.

1. The Second Respondent filed the following materials on which he sought to rely in respect of the relief sought:

(a) Second Respondent's Defence filed on 25 October 2024; and

(b) 3 documents said to evidence the Second Respondent's financial hardship, handed up at hearing on 9 October 2025.

1. The First Respondent filed the following documents during the course of the proceedings, on which the Second Respondent was also understood to rely:

(a) First Respondent's Defence filed on 30 October 2024;

(b) Outline of Submissions filed on 7 July 2025; and

(c) Unfiled documents said to evidence financial hardship, emailed to chambers on 5 September 2025.

1. The following summary of pleaded facts was not necessarily admitted in the defences but, by their participation (or non-participation) in the proceedings, was not contentious.
2. The Applicant is and, at the relevant times was: a statutory appointee of the Commonwealth by the Governor-General by written instrument pursuant to section 687(1) of the Act; a Fair Work Inspector pursuant to s.701 of the Act; and a person with standing to bring these proceedings and to apply for orders for contraventions of civil remedy provisions pursuant to s.539(2) of the Act. Fair Work Inspector Meg Dalkin is and, at the relevant times was, a Fair Work Inspector who was appointed by the Applicant under s.700(1)(a) of the Act.
3. The First Respondent is and, at the relevant times was: a natural person capable of being sued; a sole trader operating a construction business primarily involved in residential construction in Victoria, trading under the name FTP Construction (ABN 30814707043) (FTP); a "national system employer" within the meaning of s.14 of the Act, as extended by s.30D(1)(a) of the Act; a person to which the Act applied in respect of his employees; and a "person_"_ within the meaning of s.716 of the Act. .
4. The Second Respondent is and, at the relevant times was: a natural person capable of being sued; authorised by the First Respondent to operate FTP on behalf of the First Respondent and responsible for ensuring that the First Respondent complied with his legal obligations under the Act.
5. In October 2021, Fair Work Inspector Dalkin commenced an investigation into the First Respondent compliance with the Act particularly in respect of the employment of Mr Sameer Babawe and Mr Jacob Chut (former employees). Resulting from that investigation, the inspector formed a reasonable belief that:

(a) Mr Babawe was employed to work for the First Respondent on a full-time basis between 28 May 2018 and 13 July 2019, as a first year/stage 1 adult apprentice from 28 May 2018 to 27 May 2019; and as a second year/stage 2 adult apprentice from 28 May 2019 to 13 July 2019;

(b) Mr Chut was employed to work for the First Respondent on a full-time basis between 13 June 2019 and 29 December 2019, as a Construction Worker Level 1 from 13 June 2019 to 30 June 2019; and as a first year/stage 1 adult apprentice from 1 July 2019 to 29 December 2019; and

(c) The Building and Construction General On-Site Award 2012 (Award) applied to the First Respondent in respect of his employment of the former employees.

1. Arising from the investigation at paragraph 15 above, Fair Work Inspector Dalkin also formed the reasonable belief that the First Respondent had contravened the following terms of the Award and the Act in respect of the former employees:

(a) Clause 19.8(c) of the Award, by failing to pay Mr Babawe the applicable minimum rate of pay during his employment period;

(b) Clause 36.2 of the Award, by failing to pay Mr Babawe at the rate of time and a half for the first 2 hours of overtime worked on a weekday during his employment period;

(c) Clause 37.1 of the Award, by failing to pay Mr Babawe at the rate of time and a half for the first 2 hours of overtime worked on a Saturday before 12.00 pm during his employment period;

(d) Clause 37.1 of the Award, by failing to pay Mr Babawe at the rate of double time for all overtime worked after 12.00 pm on a Saturday during his employment period;

(e) Clause 15.6(a) of the Award, by failing to reimburse Mr Babawe for any costs associated with fees charged by a Registered Training Organisation (RTO) and the cost of prescribed textbooks which were incurred during his employment period;

(f) Clause 24.3(a)(i) of the Award, by failing to pay Mr Babawe the applicable living away from home allowance between 7 January 2019 and 16 January 2019;

(g) Section 90(2) of the Act, by failing to pay Mr Babawe his accrued untaken annual leave entitlement on termination of employment (inclusive of 17.5% leave loading as prescribed by clause 38.2(b) of the Award);

(h) Clause 19.3(b) of the Award, by failing to pay Mr Chut the relevant ordinary time hourly rate for the ordinary hours worked between 13 June 2019 and 30 June 2019;

(i) Clause 19.8(c) of the Award, by failing to pay Mr Chut the applicable minimum rate of pay between 1 July 2019 and 29 December 2019;

(j) Clause 15.6(a) of the Award, by failing to reimburse Mr Chut for any costs associated with fees charged by a registered training organisation and the cost of prescribed textbooks which were incurred between 1 July 2019 and 29 December 2019; and

(k) Section 90(2) of the Act, by failing to pay Mr Chut his accrued untaken annual leave entitlement on termination of employment (inclusive of 17.5% leave loading as prescribed by clause 38.2(b) of the Award).

1. On 24 May 2022, Fair Work Inspector Dalkin gave the First Respondent a statutory compliance notice pursuant to s.716(2) of the Act in respect of the alleged breaches of the Award and Act outlined in paragraph 16 above. There is no dispute that the notice was compliant with the statutory requirements outlined in s.716(3) of the Act. By the terms of the notice, the First Respondent was required to:

(a) Take the following action to remedy the direct effects of the contraventions again Mr Babawe and Mr Chut, by 27 June 2022:

(i) Calculate the amounts owing to the former employees in respect of each of the contraventions, pay those amounts to the former employees and make a record of the calculations and the payments made; and

(ii) Calculate and pay any additional superannuation contributions required pursuant to clause 28.2(a) of Award to the former employees' chosen superannuation funds in respect of any amounts required to be paid to them as a result of the steps taken at paragraph (a)(i) above;

(b) Produce to the Applicant the following reasonable evidence of his compliance with the notice, by 4 July 2022:

(i) a schedule that set out:

• (A) underpayment rectification information for each of the former employees;
• (B) reimbursement of training costs rectification information for each of the former employees;
• (C) living away from home allowance rectification information for Mr Babawe; and
• (D) accrued annual leave rectification information for each of the former employees; and

(ii) proof of full payment of the amounts required by paragraph 17(a) above.

1. On 27 June 2022, the Second Respondent provided the Applicant with calculations which the Applicant accepted as meeting the requirements identified in the notice. The Applicant further accepted that, by those calculations, the First Respondent owed a total of $31,596.2796 to the former employees:

(a) $21,126.21 in respect of Mr Babawe; and

(b) $10,470.07 in respect of Mr Chut,

1. On 14 November 2022, the Applicant and the First Respondent agreed on a payment plan by which the First Respondent would repay the identified underpayments by monthly instalments to the former employees from January 2023 to December 2023 totalling $2,633.0233, per month:

(a) $872.5058 to Mr Chut; and

(b) $1,760.5175 to Mr Babawe,

where the Applicant requested that the First Respondent provide monthly updates including EFT receipts of monthly payments, gross and net amounts.

1. On 17 February 2023 and 1 May 2023, the First Respondent made monthly payments to each of the former employees and therefore contributed a total of $5,266.06 to rectification of the identified underpayments. Since then, no further payments have been made toward the agreed payment plan or otherwise direct to the former employees.
2. Accordingly, and it is admitted in these proceedings, that the outstanding amounts owed to the former employees are:

(a) $17,605.17 in respect of Mr Babawe; and

(b) $8,725.05 in respect of Mr Chut.

1. Additionally, the First Respondent did not provide the former employees with payslips within one working day of paying an amount to them for the performance of work as required by s.536 of the Act (or at all).
2. By reason of the aforementioned facts and, on admission of the Respondents, on 5 December 2024, the Court made declarations as to the First Respondent's contraventions of ss.716(5) and 536 of the Act and the Second Respondent's involvement in those contraventions within the meaning of s.550 of the Act (extracted, in full, at Annexure A to these reasons).

1. The overarching object of the Act is to provide a balanced framework for cooperative and productive workplace relations that promotes national economic prosperity and social inclusion for all Australians, including by ensuring a guaranteed safety net of fair, relevant and enforceable minimum terms and conditions through the National Employment Standards and modern awards: s.3 of the Act.
2. The Act provides a framework for compliance and enforcement of the minimum conditions, rights and responsibilities it creates: Chapter 4 of the Act. It establishes the role and office of the Applicant whose functions include promotion and monitoring of compliance with the Act and empowers appointed inspectors to do certain things for purposes of determining whether the Act is being complied with: Part 5-2 and s.679 of the Act.
3. Where a fair work inspector forms a reasonable belief that a person has contravened the National Employment Standards, a term of a modern award or other legislated minimum conditions of employment, they may give what is known as a statutory compliance notice which is required to specify certain information: s.716.
4. Section 716(5) of the Act provides that a person "must" comply with a notice given under s.716 and is a civil remedy provision. A person who has been given a statutory compliance notice may apply to a relevant court for review of the notice on grounds that the person has not committed a contravention as set out in the notice and/or the notice does not comply with ss.716(2) or (3) of the Act: s.717 of the Act.
5. Section 536 of the Act provides that an employer must give a pay slip to each of its employees within one working day of paying them an amount in relation to the performance of work and is a civil remedy provision.
6. Section 550 provides that a person "involved in" a contravention of a civil remedy provision is taken to have contravened the provision. Involvement includes if the person is found to have been in any way, by act or omission, directly or indirectly, knowingly concerned in or party to the contravention.
7. A fair work inspector may apply to this Court for orders in relation to contraventions of ss.716(5) and 536: s.539(2). The Court may make any order it considers appropriate where satisfied that a person has contravened a civil remedy provision: s.545(1). The Court may also make a pecuniary penalty order for such contravention: s.546.

Whether to order effective compliance with the compliance notice

1. The Applicant sought an order, pursuant to s.545(1) of the Act, for effective compliance with the statutory compliance notice, by requiring the First Respondent to pay the outstanding underpayment amounts ($17,605.17 to the Applicant in respect of Mr Babawe; and $8,725.05 to the Applicant in respect of Mr Chut). In acknowledgement of the First Respondent's written submission, and the Second Respondent's oral submission at hearing, that they respectively could not afford to make pay those amounts within 28 days, the Applicant did not oppose the suggestion of an extension of the time for doing so - from 28 days to 180 days. At penalty hearing, both the Applicant and Second Respondent were agreeable to an arrangement whereby part payments be made within 80 days and 180 days.
2. As earlier referenced, s.545(1) of the Act contains a broad discretionary power for the Court to make any order it considers appropriate if the Court is satisfied that a person has contravened a civil remedy provision. Further to the admissions of the Respondents and as declared on 5 December 2024, that state of satisfaction exists.
3. In passing the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2024 (Cth) (operative since 26 February 2024), the legislature has clarified that the type of remedial order the Court may make under s.545(1) includes that which requires a person to comply, either wholly or partly, with a notice (other than an infringement notice) given to the person by an inspector or the Applicant: s.545(2)(d) of the Act.
4. In the present case and in partial compliance with the statutory compliance notice, the First Respondent calculated the particular amounts that the former employees were entitled to be paid under the Act and the Award but were not paid. It is not contentious in these proceedings that the identified underpayment amounts have since been partly repaid and there remains a balance outstanding in respect of each of the former employees such that there has been partial compliance, but strict non-compliance, with the statutory compliance notice dated 24 May 2022 (where payment in full of the identified underpayment amounts by 27 June 2022 and production of reasonable evidence of same by 4 July 2022 would have constituted compliance). In these particular circumstances, I am of the view that it is an appropriate case to make orders pursuant to s.545(1) of the Act, that there be effective compliance with the statutory compliance notice by ordering that those outstanding amounts be paid to the Applicant, who will direct the relevant monies to the former employees.

1. The Applicant also sought an order for interest on the outstanding underpayment amounts to be paid to the Applicant.
2. Section 547 of the Act provides that, unless good cause is shown to the contrary and on application, the Court must order interest in respect of an order made under Division 2 of Chapter 4, Part 4-1 (Civil Remedies) in relation to an amount that a person was required to pay to or on behalf of another person under the Act or a fair work instrument.
3. The Court is to take into account the period between the day the relevant cause of action arose and the day the order is made. The Federal Court of Australia's General Practice Note - Interest on judgments (GPN-INT) provides for the calculation of interest in respect of a pre-judgement period: at paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3. Other than general financial hardship advanced by each of the First and Second Respondents, there is no compelling reason not to order interest on the outstanding underpayment amounts which will be ordered to be paid as reasoned above. The First Respondent has had the benefit of access to those funds which were owed to the former employees in the intervening period of some 6 years. An order will be made requiring payment of interest in accordance with the Federal Court of Australia's General Practice Note - Interest on judgments (GPN-INT).

1. Another form of relief sought by the Applicant is the imposition of pecuniary penalties in the amount of $4,000.00 for their contravention of s.716(5) and involvement; and $7,500.00 for their contravention of s.536 and involvement. They submitted this amounts to 60% of the maximum penalty for each contravention, having taken into account a discount for totality and the Respondents' admissions.
2. As earlier referenced, such order may be made under s.546(1) of the Act where (as here) the Court is satisfied that a person has contravened a civil remedy provision.
3. The "course of conduct" and "totality" principles are principles or tools that assist the Court in arriving at an appropriate penalty: Fair Work Ombudsman v Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (Beams Lift Case) (No 2) [2024] FCA 779 (Snaden J) at [99].
4. The Act provides that 2 or more contraventions of "a" civil remedy provision may be taken to constitute a single contravention if committed by the same person and the contraventions arose out of a course of conduct by the person: s.557. The statutory course of conduct principle relevantly applies to contraventions of s.536 of the Act.
5. The course of conduct principle recognises that care ought to be taken so that an offender is not punished more than once for what is essentially the same wrongdoing: Royer v Western Australia [2009] WASCA 139; (2009) 197 A Crim R 319, 328 at [22] (Owen JA, with whom Miller JA agreed in the result, Buss JA dissenting). In assessing what penalty or penalties are appropriate for the contraventions, a court may (but will not necessarily) conclude that a single penalty ought to be imposed for multiple contraventions arising out of a course of conduct: Fair Work Ombudsman v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (The Hutchison Ports Appeal) [2019] FCAFC 69 at [181] (Rangiah J, with whom Ross J agreed, Flick J dissenting).
6. The totality principle requires consideration, before imposing anything, of whether the total of the penalties that might be imposed might amount to a disproportionate response to the wrongdoing.
7. It falls to determine what level of penalty (if any) is appropriate as against the First and Second Respondents in light of the established contraventions.
8. In the present proceeding, the maximum penalty the Court may impose for a contravention of s.716(5) of the Act is $6,660.00 and for a single contravention of s.536 of the Act is $12,600.00 (in respect of each Respondent, where the contraventions occurred on or between 1 July 2017 and 30 June 2020).
9. The purpose of a civil penalty under the regime provided by the Act is primarily, if not wholly, protective in the promotion of the public interest in compliance with the provisions of the Act and in (general and specific) deterrence of further contraventions: Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson [2022] HCA 13; (2022) 274 CLR 450 (Pattinson) (Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Gordon, Edelman, Steward and Gleeson JJ) at [15]-[16] citing the plurality in Commonwealth v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate [2015] HCA 46; (2015) 258 CLR 482 (French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle and Gordon JJ) and French J in Trade Practices Commission v CSR Ltd (1991) ATPR 41-076 (CSR Ltd). An "appropriate" penalty being one that "strikes a reasonable balance between oppressive severity and the need for deterrence in a particular case": Pattinson at [41].
10. The task of assessing what amount to impose involves the selection of a figure taking into account all factors relevant to the particular case: Wong v The Queen [2001] HCA 64; (2001) 207 CLR 584 (Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ) at [75]; Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan JJ) at [37]; Flight Centre Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (No 2) [2018] FCAFC 53; (2018) 260 FCR 68 (Allsop CJ, Davies and Wigney JJ) at [55]; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd (2016) 340 ALR 25 (Jagot, Yates and Bromwich JJ) at [44] as cited by Snaden J at [26] in Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson [2019] FCA 1654. The oft cited decision of French J in CSR Ltd at [42] listed those factors relevant to an overall assessment of penalty, restated by the Full Court in Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Australian Building and Construction Commissioner (The Non-Indemnification Personal Payment Case) [2018] FCAFC 97; (2018) 264 FCR 155 (Allsop CJ, White and O'Callaghan JJ) at [20]:

..the nature, character and seriousness of the conduct; the loss and damage caused; the circumstances in which the conduct took place; the size of the contravener and its degree of power; the deliberateness of the conduct and the time over which it occurred; the degree of involvement of senior officials or management; the culture of the organisation as to compliance or contravention; and, any co-operation with the regulator and contrition.

1. This is not an exhaustive list. Further, each case warrants an "idiosyncratic" approach and a careful analysis of all relevant circumstances - as was stated in Australian Ophthalmic Supplies Pty Ltd v McAlary-Smith [2008] FCAFC 8 (Graham J) at [12]:

Penalties are not a matter of precedent. The choice of penalty must be dictated by the individual circumstances of a case, not by a line by line comparison with another case.

1. The task of assessing what amount to impose involves the selection of a figure taking into account all factors relevant to the particular case: CSR Ltd, as applied in this context: see for example CFMMEU v ABCC [2018] FCAFC 97 (Allsop CJ, White and O'Callaghan JJ). I turn to consider the appropriate penalty in light of those well established principles and non-exhaustive list of factors from the case authorities.

1. The relevant conduct is the First Respondent's failure to strictly comply with the statutory compliance notice dated 24 May 2022 by paying the calculated amounts owed by 27 June 2022 and providing reasonable evidence of same to the Applicant by 4 July 2022, and its failure to issue payslips to the former employees within one working day of paying them. The Second Respondent had the authority to and was responsible for ensuring the First Respondent's compliance with those statutory obligations and therefore was involved in those contraventions.
2. On the materials before the Court, the contravention of s.716 (5) by failing to comply with the notice was deliberate given that the Respondents were aware of the statutory compliance notice and had partly complied with it by preparing and providing calculations on behalf of the First Respondent on the due date for compliance. Nonetheless, they did not make payment in full by the required date (or, subsequently, in accordance with the agreed payment plan).
3. It is relevant that the First Respondent has since partly rectified the identified underpayment amount owed to the former employees by paying them the total amount of $5,266.06. However, the outstanding amounts owed to the former employees over a lengthy period of some 6 years since their employment ended is significant ($17,605.17 in respect of Mr Babawe; and $8,725.05 in respect of Mr Chut) and elevates the seriousness of the contravention of s.716(5).
4. There is nothing before the Court to suggest, and nor does the Applicant say, that the contraventions of s.536 of the Act in respect of the failure to give payslips was a deliberate breach of workplace laws or systemic omission as distinct from a haphazard and unsatisfactory payroll system. Nonetheless, the contravention is serious because the provision of a payslip is "an important tool for ensuring compliance with legislative requirements in that they are at once evidence and an explanation of payment and assistance to both the employee and a workplace inspector: see Turnbull v Symantec (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCCA 2023 (Manousaridis J) at [9.g]. For completeness, at all material times the Second Respondent had authority on behalf of the First Respondent to undertake payroll administration, including the payment of wages to employees. The Second Respondent therefore had knowledge that the First Respondent did not issue pay slips to employees.
5. Further, the First Respondent's failure to entirely comply with the statutory compliance notice has subsequently caused the Applicant to expend public funds in commencing and pursing these proceedings which would not otherwise have been necessary.

Corrective action, cooperation and contrition

1. The Respondents' admissions and degree of cooperation in these proceedings has ultimately saved some time and resources. However, there has not been complete cooperation.
2. There was no suggestion by the Applicant, and I am prepared to accept, that the Respondents have not previously been penalised for contravention/s of the Act.
3. The Second Respondent acknowledged that whatever employment arrangements were in place at the time were not lawful and should not have been adopted. This expression of regret on the part of the Second Respondent is relevant albeit not remorseful.

1. There is no evidence before the Court relating to the size or the financial circumstances of the First Respondent's business.
2. On what limited material there is before the Court, I am prepared to accept that both Respondents are experiencing some financial hardship but am unable to find an incapacity to pay a pecuniary penalty.

1. In all of the circumstances, I am satisfied that there is a need for specific deterrence in the present case as to demonstrate that non-compliance with a statutory compliance notice and pay-slip obligations is not acceptable and to deter the Respondents from future conduct of this kind. Particularly, because the First Respondent continues to operate as a sole trader and the Second Respondent is still authorised by the First Respondent to operate the business. It is acknowledged that the First Respondent did make some payments to the former employees in respect of the calculated amounts, however such payments were made after the date for compliance.
2. I am also persuaded that there is a need for general deterrence in the present matter, to emphasise the importance of an effective compliance framework, and at a sufficient level to impress upon other employers in the building industry the importance of complying with the legal obligations owed to their employees and that non-compliance will be penalised. The statutory framework concerning compliance notices is an important mechanism for the Applicant to address and resolve non-compliance with minimum entitlements in the Act, at an early stage, without commencing litigation and without penalty and to create a framework by which compliance can be monitored. Failure to comply with a statutory compliance notice issued by the Applicant is serious. Failure to give payslips as required by the statute prevents an employee from monitoring their pay and conditions and frustrates the Applicant in its investigative role. Such conduct ultimately serves to undermine the Act's enforcement framework and the safety net of entitlements it is designed to protect.

1. When all of the above factors are considered, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to impose a pecuniary penalty on the First Respondent for their contraventions of ss.716(5) and 536 of the Act and on the Second Respondent for their involvement in those contraventions within the meaning of s.550(2) of the Act. The s.536 contraventions are properly treated as a single course of conduct for present purposes.
2. Weighing the various competing factors and in the particular circumstances, a penalty set at $2,000.00 in respect of the First Respondent and $2,000.00 in respect of the Second Respondent is appropriate for the admitted contravention of s.716(5) and involvement in that contravention; and a penalty set at $5,000.00 in respect of the First Respondent and $5,000.00 in respect of the Second Respondent is appropriate for the admitted contraventions of s.536 and involvement in those contraventions.
3. I consider this is a proportionate response to the declared contraventions and strikes a reasonable balance between oppressive severity and the need for both general and specific deterrence in this particular case.
4. I will also order that the penalty be payable to the Commonwealth of Australia within 180 days of these orders, to be paid in equal instalments at 80 and 180 days, and the Applicant have liberty to apply on 7 days' notice in the event of non-compliance with the Court's orders.

1. In accordance with the above reasons, I will make orders for effective compliance with the statutory compliance notice dated 24 May 2022, payment of interest and pecuniary penalties.

I certify that the preceding sixty-six (66) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Mansini.

1. The First Respondent contravened section 716(5) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) by failing to comply with the Compliance Notice dated 24 May 2022.
2. The First Respondent contravened section 536 of the Act by failing to issue Mr Sameer Babawe and Mr Jacob Chut pay slips within one working day of paying them.
3. The Second Respondent was involved, within the meaning of section 550(2) of the Act, in the contravention by the First Respondent of section 716(5) of the Act referred to in paragraph 1 above.
4. The Second Respondent was involved, within the meaning of section 550(2) of the Act, in the contravention by the First Respondent of section 536 of the Act referred to in paragraph 2 above.