Wakefield v Compute Your World & Dixon [2025] SAET 101

In two separate actions in the South Australian Employment Tribunal concerning disputes under the Return to Work Act 2014 involving Kieran O'Rourke and the Return to Work Corporation of South Australia, summonses were issued against George Dixon and his company, Compute Your World Pty Ltd (the company) pursuant to s 33 of the South Australian Employment Tribunal Act 2014 (the SAET Act). The summonses directed Mr Dixon and his company to attend before the Tribunal to give evidence and produce specified documents pertaining to the disputes and they were returnable before the Tribunal for 7 March 2025 at 11.00am.
Neither Mr Dixon nor the company complied with the summonses.
Pursuant to s 33(4) of the SAET Act, the failure to comply with a summons issued under s 33 of that Act renders the defaulting entity liable for each breach up to a maximum penalty of a fine of $25,000 or imprisonment for 1 year.
Pursuant to s 91B of the SAET Act, an offence against a provision of that Act lies within the criminal jurisdiction of the South Australian Employment Court. In conformity with this, the Registrar of the Tribunal issued criminal proceedings in this Court against Mr Dixon and the company, alleging that each entity was guilty of two breaches of s 33 of the SAET Act.
This matter was last before this Court on 12 August 2025, at which time it was adjourned until today. In the course of that hearing the Court said:

The matter will be adjourned until 2.15 on Thursday, 11 September 2025. My associate is to advise Mr Dixon of the adjourned date and time and to advise him that on the information provided to the Court thus far, we're satisfied that he was served with the original summons, and we're satisfied that he was served with the summons, the subject of the within application, and he's to be advised that he has the opportunity to comply with the original summons on or before 11 September 2025. But if there's a failure to do so, then I'll have my associate point out to Mr Dixon the penalty provisions as contained in the South Australian Employment Tribunal Act.

The direction to my Associate was complied with.
When the matter was called on today, there was no appearance by Mr Dixon or the company. A search of the Tribunal records reveal that Mr Dixon and the company continue to have failed to comply with the summonses that were issued against them.
At the commencement of today's hearing, the Crown made application pursuant to s 62 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1921, to proceed in the absence of Mr Dixon and the company. Section 62(b) of that Act provides:

...upon proof that the summons was served a reasonable time before the time thereby appointed for his appearance,...[the Court may] proceed in the absence of the defendant to the hearing of the information and subject to section 62C to adjudicate thereon as fully and effectually, to all intents and purposes, as if the defendant had personally appeared before it in obedience to the summons;

For present purposes, the relevance of s 62C is that special consideration is required if an order for imprisonment is sought. Given the advice from the Crown that no such order was sought, I resolved to proceed in the absence of Mr Dixon and the company. I did so, because I was satisfied, based on an affidavit of a member of the Registry team at the Tribunal, that Mr Dixon and the company were duly served with the summonses.
Failures to comply with a summons to attend the Tribunal and a summons to produce documents to the Tribunal are serious matters. The efficient and expeditious work of the Court and the Tribunal depends upon compliance with the directions and orders that they make. Those who are served with a summons to attend or produce need to understand that absent an order from the Court or the Tribunal relieving the obligation to comply, compliance is non-negotiable. If it were otherwise, the work of the Court and Tribunal could be seriously compromised. A penalty that brings this home to the defendants in this case, and to all those who are served with summonses to attend the Tribunal and to produce documents, is required.
In this case, there is a sense of double jeopardy in play, in that any sanction imposed upon the company will impact upon Mr Dixon. It is also the case that he is the mind and heart of the company, and its breach is, in reality, his breach.
With this in mind, I imposed the following penalties:
1. Pursuant to s33(4) of South Australian Employment Tribunal Act 2014 (the Act) I convict and impose a fine of $5,000.00 upon Mr George Dixon in respect of his failure to comply with the Summons issued on 13 February 2025 in action numbers ET-24- 00833 and ET-24-00834 commanding his attendance to give evidence before the South Australian Employment Tribunal (the Tribunal) on 7 March 2025.
2. Pursuant to s33(4) of the Act I convict and impose a further fine of $5,000.00 upon Mr George Dixon in respect of his failure to comply with the Summons issued on 13 February 2025 in action numbers ET-24-00833 and ET-24-00834 to produce to the Tribunal the documents specified in the Summons.
3. 3 Pursuant to s33(4) of the Act I convict without further penalty Compute Your World Pty Ltd in respect of its failure to comply with the Summons issued on 13 February 2025 in action numbers ET-24-00833 and ET-24-00834 commanding its attendance to attend before the Tribunal on 7 March 2025 to give evidence.
4. Pursuant to s33(4) of the Act I convict without further penalty Compute Your World Pty Ltd in respect of its failure to comply with the Summons issued on 13 February 2025 in action numbers ET-24-00833 and ET-24-00834 to produce to the Tribunal the documents specified in the Summons.

Australian Employment Tribunal Act 2014

South Australian Employment Tribunal Act 2014

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (5 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (4)