Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)

JUDGMENT OF: His Honour Deputy President Judge Gilchrist

Underpayment of wages claims - No attendance by the applicants - Matters adjourned - If no attendance on the next occasion the matters may be dismissed for want of prosecution - Fair Work Act (Cth) 2009, South Australian Employment Tribunal Act 2014

1. The within proceedings concern underpayment of wages claims by Daniel Langguth and Kshitij Mall. Both allege that they are owed amounts for unpaid wages, penalty rates and overtime in connection with their employment with Just Gluten Free Italian Style Pty Ltd (Just Gluten Free). At all relevant times the director of Just Gluten Free was Sabine De Vuono.
2. Just Gluten Free has since been placed into liquidation. When this matter was last before this Court, I allowed Mr Langguth and Mr Mall to amend their applications to add Ms De Vuono as a respondent. I did so because based upon their submissions there was a possibility that action might lay against Ms De Vuono. Mr Langguth and Mr Mall alleged that they were not paid in accordance with the award that applied to their employment. Section 45 of the Fair Work Act (Cth) 2009 (the FW Act) provides that a person must not contravene a modern award and that it is a civil penalty provision. Section 550(1) of the FW Act extends the reach of the power to award a civil penalty to include persons involved in the contravention. The concept of "involved" in is defined by s 550(2) of the FW Act as follows:

A person is involved in a contravention of a civil remedy provision if, and only if, the person:

(a) has aided, abetted, counselled or procured the contravention; or

(b) has induced the contravention, whether by threats or promises or otherwise; or

(c) has been in any way, by act or omission, directly or indirectly, knowingly concerned in or party to the contravention; or

(d) has conspired with others to effect the contravention.

1. Mr Langguth and Mr Mall indicated that they intended to allege that Ms De Vuono met this definition.
2. The proceedings were adjourned until today to enable Mr Langguth and Mr Mall to contact with the liquidator of Just Gluten Free and to explore obtaining evidence in support of their allegation that Ms De Vuono was a person involved in a contravention of a civil remedy provision.
3. By letter dated 10 October 2025, Ms De Vuono advised the Court that she would not be attending today's hearing; that she is currently residing in Italy caring for her ailing mother; that she is being treated for anxiety and depression; that she makes no admissions in respect of the proceedings before the Court; and that she has no income or assets in Australia. She asked that the proceedings against her personally not proceed.
4. When this matter was called on today neither Mr Langguth nor Mr Mall were in attendance. No explanation as to why they did not attend was provided.
5. For now, I do not grant Ms De Vuono the relief that she seeks. If Mr Langguth or Mr Mall wish to be heard in connection with it, they have the right to be heard. However, given the liquidation of Just Gluten Free and the fact that Ms De Vuono is not in Australia, (which Mr Langguth and Mr Mall are aware of), there is a reasonable possibility that they no longer intend to pursue the actions in this Court. That might explain why neither attended court today.
6. In the circumstances, I adjourn these proceedings to 9.15am on Wednesday 10 December 2025. I intimate that if there is no attendance on that occasion, I am minded to dismiss both actions for want of prosecution pursuant to s 40(4) of the South Australian Employment Tribunal Act 2014.