//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[1982] FCA 329
Federal Court of Australia
1982-06-23
Morling J, Mr J
Original judgment source is linked above.
For the reasons I have given I am of the opinion that the applicant has established breaches of s.47(6) of the Act by the first respondent. Mr Drummond conceded, in my view, correctly that if a breach by the first respondent of s.47(6) was found to be established then the second respondent was necessarily knowingly concerned in that breach - vide s.76(e) of the Act. Counsel were agreed that the question of penalties should stand over pending my determination of the respondents' liability. That question can be considered on a date suitable to
"What then if the wrong was committed solely for the benefit of the employee? Although Willes J did not so state, or even imply, it took the decision of the House of Lords in Lloyd v. Grace, Smith & Co. [1912] AC 716 to dispel the suggestion that there was no liability of the employer for frauds or wrongs committed for the benefit of the employee. Earl Loreburn LC said (at p 725): ''Willes J cannot have meant that the