s 323. AKH initially denied any bonus was owed, but later conceded a small entitlement and paid her $1,780.45. No explanation was provided as to how this figure was calculated. 5. Section 323(1) is the statutory backup of the fundamental contractual promise to pay for work performed. It obliges employers to pay amounts payable for the performance of work, including "incentive - based payments and bonuses" to an employee in full, at least within one month of them becoming due. Section 323 is a civil remedy provision, contravention of which creates a potential liability for a pecuniary penalty. 6. The applicant's contraventions case was that a number of unrelated or arbitrary expenses were incorrectly added to each quarters' tally, and that significant revenue was excluded from two quarters. 7. Following a hearing on 17 July 2025, I delivered oral reasons for upholding the applicant's claims in principle, while granting AKH an opportunity to seek to tender further relevant documents on the discrete topic of the dates of receipt of revenue, and reserving judgement on the final quantum of owed bonus. 8. I subsequently determined the applicant was entitled to a bonus of $5,180 for her first quarter, $1,521 for the second quarter, $3,363 for the third quarter, and a pro rata bonus of $3,250 for the final quarter. The unexplained late payment to the applicant of $1,780.45 was credited as part payment of the final bonus. 9. I concluded that certain expenses attributed to admin, cleaning supplies, subscriptions, advertising, consulting, repairs and outgoings, had been incorrectly added to the applicant's sites. I also found that very high 'production costs' had been incorrectly added as expenses, in addition to the internal costs of goods sold, which was accepted as correct. 10. For example, in July 2024, cost of sales expenses of $9,732 were charged for breads, dry ingredients and pastries, as well as unexplained 'production costs' of $22,360.[1] In July 2024, unexplained admin costs of $9,404 were also charged. Mr Wilson sought to justify charging an expense for the internal costs of goods sold as well as the costs of production of those goods. He did not accept this was double counting. Nor could he explain how the production and admin costs figures were set. 11. I found that $9,207 of paid catering revenue was excluded from August's results, and $36,828 for the same event was excluded from November's results. 12. There were four distinct contraventions of s 323, one for each unpaid quarterly bonus. They are to be treated as one contravention for the purpose of imposing a penalty, because they arose from the same course of conduct committed by the same person: s 577. The common course of conduct was to add the same type of unrelated and unexplained high expenses, and to remove revenue from one catering job to produce a nil result each quarter. 13. I find it is appropriate to impose a penalty on AHK for a singular contravention of s 323, and to impose a penalty on Mr Wilson for his involvement in the single grouped contravention. 14. The maximum pecuniary penalty for a contravention at the relevant time by a corporation was $98,800 and for an individual was $19,800. 15. There has been no rectification by AHK. Nor has it paid the ordered pre-trail interest of $800. It has paid nothing to the applicant. It has not communicated with her. It has not lodged an appeal, despite Mr Wilson insisting AHK had filed an appeal in the Federal Court, which unnecessarily caused this application to be adjourned twice. 16. Mr Wilson has not acknowledged the Court's ruling and his mistakes. There is no evidence of any changed attitude to the applicant's correct entitlement. There is no evidence of any response regarding how other site managers' bonuses are calculated. 17. Further written and oral evidence was received from the applicant in this proceeding. I accept that unchallenged evidence as truthful. 18. The applicant was initially approached by Mr Wilson and offered a position of managing two retails sites. She was not then seeking new employment. Mr Wilson obtained her contact details from a marketing company that knew her. The applicant was interested but not at the offered remuneration. The offer was a salary plus a 5% quarterly profit bonus, with an increase to 10% after two years' service. Mr Wilson told her the 5% bonus scheme applied to other site managers. After more negotiations, the applicant accepted an increased offer with a 10% profit share. The written contract reflected the agreed bonus terms. 19. The applicant worked the agreed 40 hours per week plus additional hours. 20. Mr Wilson was the only officer of the AKH who communicated with her about the bonus. AKH's external accountant referred her bonus queries to Mr Wilson. The applicant first raised verbal concerns with Mr Wilson in June 2024 about non-payment of a bonus for the first quarter. As she felt his response was evasive, she put her queries in writing. 21. The applicant was sent an email by Mr Wilson on 21 October 2024[2] that prompted the applicant's resignation. Mr Wilson commenced by congratulating her performance in growing and developing the sites, and by describing her "physical and mental work ethic" as "outstanding". He then criticised her attitude and communications with him, with a warning that termination may result with no improvement. His response regarding no bonus payment in the first 9 months of employment was: "...your bonus incentive structure has been and is continually underway for processing at the earliest possible time."[3] The applicant's evidence is that Mr Wilson also told her she was ungrateful. 22. The applicant was later given revised profit and loss figures. These included higher expenses that had been introduced or manipulated to produce losses. The applicant was also told by Mr Wilson that no catering revenue had been received during her employment, when subsequently produced payment records showed the opposite.

1. The purpose of imposing a civil penalty is to deter future non-compliance with the minimum National Employment Standards. A civil penalty is not punitive or proportionate. If there is evidence of genuine contrition and thorough rectification of contraventions for all affected employees, and evidence of revised systems to ensure no similar future contraventions, there may be very little need for individual deterrence.
2. However, that is not the case here. I conclude there has been a complete absence of any rectification of the applicant's entitlements and of AKH's bonus system. There is no evidence of any contrition by either respondent. The Court's payment orders have been ignored, without any communication to the applicant.
3. I also find an aggravating circumstance has not been addressed. That is the production of unjustified revised figures by Mr Wilson to show losses in each quarter. Based on this circumstance, together with the unjustified disciplinary warning, I infer AKH engaged in unreasonable retaliatory action against the applicant for pursuing her bonuses.
4. I conclude that the circumstances of the contraventions call for a significant penalty to be imposed on the employer, and on Mr Wilson to deter similar conduct. An element of general deterrence is included for the benefit of employers and those responsible for objectively calculated bonuses or commissions.
5. Having regard to all the circumstances, I conclude it is appropriate to impose a penalty of $30,000 on AKH and a penalty of $15,000 on Mr Wilson. I order the penalties to be paid to the applicant.
6. Final Orders
   1. I order Abbots and Kinney Holding Pty Ltd to pay a penalty of $30,000 to the applicant within 21 days.
   2. I order Richard Wilson to pay a penalty of $15,000 to the applicant within 21 days.