Fair Work General Protections Default Judgment Dispute: When an Employer Ignores the Court, How Are Underpayments and Adverse Action Proved and Remedied on the Face of the Pleadings?

Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Al-Areqi v 3 Lads Laverton Food Hub [2025] FedCFamC2G 687, this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds.

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information

Court of Hearing: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2), General Federal Law
Presiding Judge: Judge Mansini
Cause of Action: Industrial law proceeding under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) involving general protections, underpayment and minimum entitlement contraventions, and payslip and regular payment obligations
Judgment Date: 14 May 2025
Core Keywords:
Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case
Keyword 2: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) general protections
Keyword 3: Restaurant Industry Award 2020 underpayments
Keyword 4: Default judgment and deemed admissions
Keyword 5: Adverse action by dismissal following workplace complaints
Keyword 6: Payslip contraventions and misleading records

Background

A short employment relationship in the restaurant industry became a legal dispute because the Applicant alleged she was paid a flat hourly rate below the lawful minimum, did not receive lawful penalty rates or overtime, did not receive superannuation contributions, and was not provided core minimum entitlement information. The dispute escalated when workplace complaints were made about pay and entitlements and the Applicant was allegedly dismissed in response. The case did not unfold like a typical contested hearing. The Respondent did not engage with the proceedings, did not file a defence, did not appear, and did not comply with multiple Court directions, placing the Court in the position of deciding what relief should be granted where the Respondent’s default triggered procedural consequences.

Core Disputes and Claims

The legal focus turned on two linked questions.

First, on the underpayment and minimum entitlement side: whether, on the pleaded facts and the admissions the Respondent was taken to have made by default, the Respondent contravened civil remedy provisions relating to minimum rates, penalty rates, overtime, superannuation, annual leave on termination, wage payment in full, provision of the Fair Work Information Statement, and payslip obligations.

Second, on the general protections side: whether the pleaded timeline and communications supported a finding that the Applicant exercised workplace rights by making complaints or inquiries, and that the Respondent took adverse action by dismissing the Applicant for a prohibited reason, or for reasons that included the prohibited reason, such that compensation for economic loss and general damages was justified.

Relief sought by the Applicant included declarations, compensation for discrete underpayment components, compensation for economic loss and general damages for adverse action, interest, and the foreshadowed issue of pecuniary penalties to be determined through a later programming order.

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The Applicant entered the Respondent’s workplace as a full-time food and beverage attendant. The relationship formed quickly and informally, with an agreement reached by a workplace conversation. In practical terms, this is common in small hospitality operations: work starts, rosters are set, and pay terms are often expressed as a simple hourly figure. That simplicity, however, can conceal legal complexity because modern awards and the National Employment Standards impose layered entitlements that override any informal “flat rate” understanding when it undercuts minimum standards.

The Applicant’s work pattern, as pleaded, involved early morning shifts that cut across the midnight to 6.00 am window where penalty provisions can apply. The first week was heavy: long shifts across five days, producing a weekly total that exceeded 38 hours. The following week included three shifts. This kind of roster, when paired with a flat hourly rate, is the classic setting for disputes about overtime and penalties, because the legal rate is not simply the base hourly figure; it is the base plus multipliers and loadings depending on when and how long the work is performed.

The conflict foreshadowed itself when the Applicant, through a group WhatsApp exchange, raised concerns about pay and entitlements. The pleadings described this as complaints or inquiries about award and statutory benefits. In a workplace, those communications can be the turning point: once an employee asserts rights, the employer’s response determines whether the dispute remains a payroll correction or becomes an adverse action claim.

According to the pleaded narrative, the Respondent’s attitude became hostile and retaliatory, culminating in a dismissal in words to the effect of an instruction never to return. In human terms, this is the moment a wage dispute becomes a livelihood crisis. In legal terms, it is the moment when the general protections regime is engaged, because the law is designed to protect the act of complaining about workplace rights from retaliation.

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Applicant’s Main Evidence and Arguments

1. Employment start and end dates and role description
   The Applicant pleaded she worked full-time for a short period and performed food and beverage attendant duties: serving, taking money, reservations, greeting and seating guests, and cleaning. This classification mattered because it connected the work to the Restaurant Industry Award 2020 classification structure.

2. The pay term asserted at engagement
   The Applicant pleaded an agreed pay rate of AUD $25 per hour and a roster expectation of about five days per week and eight hours per day or shift. This was important because the later payslip recorded AUD $25 per hour while the actual payments were pleaded as a lower flat rate, creating a credibility and recordkeeping problem for the Respondent.

3. Roster and hours evidence
   The pleaded hours were set out with a level of specificity that is unusual in a short employment dispute: the start and end times, total hours per day, and the component falling between midnight and 6.00 am. This supported calculation of both penalties and overtime under the Award.

4. Payment evidence and alleged underpayment methodology
   The Applicant alleged the Respondent paid a flat AUD $18.75 per hour for all hours, including early morning hours and overtime hours beyond 38 per week, and did not pay superannuation or annual leave amounts. The claim framed the shortfall as the difference between what was paid and what the Award and the Act required.

5. Payslip evidence
   The Applicant alleged the Respondent provided a payslip showing an hourly rate of AUD $25.00, but the payslip did not include the number of hours worked, and it was pleaded to be false or misleading. This evidence served two functions: it founded separate contraventions, and it strengthened the inference that underpayments were not accidental.

6. Workplace complaint evidence: WhatsApp group messages
   The Applicant pleaded that complaints or inquiries were made between 8 and 12 July 2023 through a group WhatsApp exchange. The pleaded content included that a manager responded characterising the complaints as “selfish”. Even without quoting every message, the pleaded existence of a group exchange, its timing, and the alleged response created a narrative chain: complaint, hostility, dismissal.

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments

None. The Respondent did not file any materials, did not file a defence, did not enter an appearance, and did not participate in the hearings. That absence is not merely a practical gap; it changes the legal posture of the case because default procedures can deem admissions and enable default judgment.

Core Dispute Points

1. Underpayments and minimum entitlements
   Whether the pleaded facts established contraventions of the Award and the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) concerning minimum ordinary rates, penalties, overtime, superannuation, annual leave on termination and leave loading, and wage payment in full.

2. Recordkeeping and payslip compliance
   Whether the pleaded payslip defects and alleged falsity supported contraventions relating to payslip content and misleading payslips.

3. General protections
   Whether the pleaded workplace complaints or inquiries constituted the exercise of workplace rights, and whether the pleaded dismissal was adverse action for a prohibited reason or reasons that included a prohibited reason.

4. Procedural entitlement to default judgment
   Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to enter default judgment and grant the claimed relief when the Respondent was properly served and repeatedly failed to engage.

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

Affidavits in cases like this do more than confirm events. They curate the dispute into a sequence that fits the legal elements. The Applicant’s evidence functioned in two tracks: factual reconstruction of work performed and payments made, and procedural proof of service and non-compliance to justify default judgment.

A key feature was the affidavit material evidencing service on the Respondent at its registered business address, supported by reference to corporate registration information. That service evidence became the foundation for the Court’s conclusion that the Respondent was on notice and had ample opportunity to participate.

The difference between what an employee says happened and what the law requires often turns on specificity. Here, the affidavit-driven narrative mattered because it anchored calculations: how many hours were worked, when they were worked, and what was paid. In a contested case, a respondent might attack those calculations or the classification. In a default context, the affidavits support the Court’s confidence that the pleaded claims are not speculative.

Strategically, procedural directions about affidavits served a dual purpose. They ensured the Court could safely proceed without the Respondent, and they protected the integrity of the Court process by requiring the Applicant to show, step by step, that the Respondent had been served with the originating process, the statement of claim, the default judgment application, and the programming orders warning of consequences.

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Before the final reasons were delivered, the Court’s procedural management included:

1. Orders requiring the Respondent to file a notice of address for service
2. Orders requiring the Respondent to file a defence by a specified deadline
3. Orders foreshadowing that, if the Respondent did not comply, an application for default judgment could be filed and referred to a Judge for determination
4. Orders programming the default judgment application for hearing, requiring outlines of submissions and any supporting affidavit material
5. Orders requiring service of programming orders on the Respondent and noting that non-compliance could result in determination under the default judgment rules
6. Orders discontinuing the claim against an individual formerly named as a respondent, narrowing the litigation to the corporate respondent
7. Orders, after the hearing, directing a supplementary document to identify pleadings specific to the Applicant’s matter as a stand-alone case and requiring service of that material

These orders show a key structural truth about federal workplace litigation: the Court often gives repeated procedural opportunities to participate, and it builds a service and warning record before granting default relief.

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

Process Reconstruction: Live Restoration

The hearing that mattered was notable for what did not occur. There was no cross-examination because there was no Respondent appearance. There was no competing narrative, no alternative calculation methodology, no contention about classification, and no articulated defence to general protections.

Instead, the “showdown” occurred between procedural fairness and procedural consequences. The Court had to be satisfied that the Respondent was properly served, that the pleadings properly set out the elements, and that the relief claimed was appropriate. The Court’s logic was forensic: it examined service evidence, compliance history, pleading adequacy, jurisdiction, and the nature of default admissions.

In cases involving vulnerable workers, the risk in default proceedings is not merely that the employer is absent; it is that the Court must avoid granting relief on vague claims. The Applicant’s materials therefore had to function like a well-built bridge: each plank being a pleaded element, tied to a statutory provision, and linked to a specific monetary consequence.

Core Evidence Confrontation

The most decisive “evidence confrontation” was the juxtaposition of:

1. The pleaded roster and hours pattern, including midnight to 6.00 am components and weekly totals above 38 hours
2. The pleaded payment practice: a flat hourly rate applied across all hours
3. The pleaded payslip representation: an hourly rate of AUD $25.00 coupled with missing hours details
4. The pleaded WhatsApp complaint sequence and the alleged hostile response
5. The pleaded dismissal instruction never to return
6. The procedural evidence of service and repeated defaults

In an adversarial hearing, each of these could be contested. In this hearing, the Court treated the Respondent’s default as activating the rule-based framework under which admissions were taken to have been made, subject to the Court’s caution and discretion.

Judicial Reasoning: How the Court Moved from Facts to Orders

The Court’s determinative reasoning focused on the conditions for default judgment in a pleadings-based proceeding and on the absence of any need for evidentiary proof of the claim, provided the statement of claim properly pleaded each element and the Court was satisfied the Applicant appeared entitled to relief.

Context: The Court explained the test it applied to be satisfied that default judgment was appropriate, and why evidence of the underlying claim was not required in that procedural posture.

The Court will be “satisfied that it is appropriate to give default judgment if the originating process and subsequent written notifications of the Court were served on the relevant respondent, a default judgment application against the respondent has been made, each element of the relief claimed in the default judgment application was pleaded in the statement of claim, and the relief claimed is appropriate”.

This statement was determinative because it set the legal gateway. Once service, pleading sufficiency, and appropriateness of relief were established, the Respondent’s non-participation did not prevent the Court from granting declarations and compensation. The Court’s method was not to speculate about defences but to assess entitlement on the face of the pleadings and the procedural record.

Context: The Court emphasised discretion and caution, and explained why it would not invent possible defences for an absent party.

The power to grant default judgment is discretionary, to be exercised with caution. The Applicant is not required to prove by way of evidence the claim which is sought to be advanced, but the Court does have to be satisfied on the face of the statement of claim that the Applicant appears entitled to the relief claimed. Absent their participation, the Court does not need to descend into speculation as to the possible defences that might have been available had the Respondent so participated.

This was determinative because it clarified the boundary of the Court’s role: ensuring procedural fairness by requiring proper service and proper pleading, while enforcing the integrity of the litigation process by not letting silence block lawful remedies.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Court entered default judgment for the Applicant against the Respondent.

The Court ordered that within 42 days the Respondent pay:

1. Compensation totalling AUD $1,232.63 for minimum rate, penalty rates, overtime rates, superannuation, and accrued untaken annual leave components.
2. Compensation for economic loss in the sum of AUD $4,541.49.
3. General damages for the adverse action claim in the sum of AUD $2,000.00.
4. Interest on the above amounts, calculated at the applicable Federal Court of Australia pre-judgment interest rate.

The Court also made declarations that the Respondent contravened multiple civil remedy provisions, including contraventions tied to annual leave payment on termination, failure to provide the Fair Work Information Statement, Award underpayments, failure to pay wages in full, adverse action for prohibited reasons, and payslip defects including misleading payslips.

Procedurally, the Court ordered service of the orders on the Respondent and programmed the question of pecuniary penalties for determination on the papers, with a timetable for written evidence and submissions.

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

Special Analysis: Why This Case Matters Beyond the Dollar Figures

This judgment sits at the intersection of three realities in Australian workplace law.

First, hospitality underpayment disputes often involve short engagements and cashflow-driven practices that are incompatible with award compliance. The small timeframe does not shrink the legal obligations; it simply compresses the evidentiary and calculation work into a tighter window.

Second, general protections claims frequently rise from the exact moment an employee complains. The law does not require a sophisticated complaint. A workplace inquiry about lawful pay can be enough to engage workplace rights protections.

Third, the procedural lesson is unusually stark: when a respondent employer refuses to participate, the Court can and will determine liability and grant monetary relief on default if pleadings are properly drafted, service is proved, and the relief is appropriate.

Judgment Points: Noteworthy Judicial Logic and Features

1. The Court treated declaratory relief as a public statement of disapproval
   Declarations were not treated as decorative. The Court framed them as appropriate to record disapproval of contravening conduct, even where monetary relief was also ordered. This reflects the civil penalty character of the regime: contraventions are not merely private debts; they are breaches of statutory norms.

2. The Court extended payment time to 42 days to accommodate service realities
   Rather than ordering immediate payment, the Court allowed a slightly longer period, acknowledging that orders had to be served on a non-participating corporate respondent. This is practical judging: orders must be enforceable, and enforceability begins with proper service.

3. The Court separated compensation and penalties procedurally
   The Court granted compensation and programmed penalties for later determination on the papers. This division is a reminder that penalties engage distinct discretionary factors and often require submissions about seriousness, course of conduct, deterrence, and proportionality.

4. The Court anchored default judgment in overarching purpose considerations
   The Court explicitly linked acceptance of a late default judgment application to the overarching purpose of achieving just resolution in an inexpensive and efficient way. Default judgment was treated not as a shortcut, but as a mechanism to prevent a party from defeating justice by non-engagement.

Legal Basis: Statutory Provisions the Court Relied Upon to Resolve the Dispute

1. Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)
   Civil remedy provisions and entitlement sources including ss 44, 45, 90, 125, 323, 340, 341, 536, 540, 545, 547, together with the Act’s structure connecting modern awards and the National Employment Standards to enforceable obligations.

2. Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth)
   The Court’s power to make declarations, and the overarching purpose framework supporting efficient and just resolution.

3. Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)
   The procedural machinery for default judgment, proceeding on pleadings, and the Court’s ability to proceed where a party fails to appear after proper notice.

4. Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth)
   Prescribed payslip information requirements supporting contraventions where payslips lacked required details.

Evidence Chain: Conclusion = Evidence + Statutory Provisions

Victory Point 1: A tightly pleaded employment narrative that mapped directly onto award coverage and classification
Evidence side: The duties described (food and beverage attendant work) and the employer’s business nature (restaurant industry) supported modern award coverage and the relevant classification.
Law side: Once Award coverage applied, minimum rates, penalty and overtime provisions became enforceable through the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
Why it won: The Court could see, on the face of the statement of claim, that the Applicant’s role fitted within the Award’s framework, leaving no pleading gap for the Respondent to exploit.

Victory Point 2: The roster details made penalties and overtime a mathematical consequence, not a debate
Evidence side: The pleaded shift times and weekly totals established both midnight to 6.00 am work and work above 38 hours in a week.
Law side: The Award’s penalty and overtime provisions, when triggered, require higher rates.
Why it won: Specificity prevented the claim from being dismissed as vague. The Court could accept entitlement calculations as pleaded because the factual triggers were clearly identified.

Victory Point 3: The “flat rate” allegation neatly supported multiple contraventions at once
Evidence side: The pleaded flat AUD $18.75 per hour applied to all hours, regardless of penalty or overtime triggers, combined with non-payment of superannuation and annual leave amounts.
Law side: This supported underpayment contraventions, wage payment in full issues, and minimum entitlement contraventions.
Why it won: A single payroll practice, when pleaded properly, can establish a cluster of contraventions without needing separate stories for each head.

Victory Point 4: The payslip narrative created both a compliance breach and a credibility inference
Evidence side: Payslips were pleaded to omit hours worked and to misstate the rate as AUD $25.00.
Law side: Payslip obligations are strict; missing prescribed information and issuing misleading payslips are separate contraventions.
Why it won: The payslip allegations strengthened both the recordkeeping breach claim and the plausibility of underpayment allegations, because they suggested an inconsistency between records and payments.

Victory Point 5: The general protections chain was built around timing and communications, not speculation
Evidence side: Complaints or inquiries in a WhatsApp group exchange between 8 and 12 July 2023, followed by hostility and dismissal on 12 July 2023.
Law side: Workplace rights include the ability to make complaints or inquiries about employment, and adverse action includes dismissal for prohibited reasons or reasons including prohibited reasons.
Why it won: Temporal proximity and the pleaded response language made the allegation legally coherent. The claim did not depend on mind-reading; it depended on a sequence.

Victory Point 6: Service evidence and procedural history turned non-participation into deemed admissions
Evidence side: Affidavits evidencing service of originating process, statement of claim, default judgment application, and Court orders at the Respondent’s registered business address, paired with repeated non-compliance and non-appearance.
Law side: Default judgment rules and the deeming of admissions on default.
Why it won: The Court’s central concern in default judgment is procedural fairness. Once fairness was demonstrated through service and warnings, the Respondent’s silence did not block relief.

Victory Point 7: The remedies were framed conservatively and linked to pleaded losses
Evidence side: Discrete dollar amounts for each underpayment head and a pleaded economic loss period, plus general damages.
Law side: Compensation powers under the Act require satisfaction of contravention and loss.
Why it won: The relief sought was structured, itemised, and aligned with statutory powers. It looked like compensation, not punishment disguised as compensation.

Victory Point 8: The Court’s refusal to speculate about defences protected the Applicant from procedural sabotage
Evidence side: No defence filed and no appearance.
Law side: The Court’s role is to assess entitlement on the face of pleadings in default, not to invent defences.
Why it won: The Respondent’s strategy of silence could not force the Court into hypothetical debate. The legal system rewarded participation, not avoidance.

Judicial Original Quotation: Ratio-Centred Passages and Why They Were Determinative

Context: The Court identified the threshold conditions for default judgment in pleadings-based matters, emphasising service, pleading sufficiency, and appropriateness of relief.

It is well established that, in being so satisfied, the Court does not require proof by way of evidence.

This was determinative because it explains why the Applicant’s success depended on pleading quality and procedural service, rather than on running a full evidentiary contest in the absence of the Respondent.

Context: The Court stated it would not speculate about defences that might have existed if the Respondent had participated.

The Respondent has elected not to engage with these proceedings at all. Absent their participation, the Court does not need to descend into speculation as to the possible defences that might have been available had the Respondent so participated.

This was determinative because it framed the fairness balance: fairness to the absent party was provided through notice and opportunity, not through the Court doing their legal work for them.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure: How the Respondent’s Choices Produced the Outcome

1. Procedural failure: no address for service, no defence, no submissions, no appearance
   The Respondent’s repeated non-compliance meant the Court’s file recorded a consistent pattern of disengagement. In default judgment, this pattern is decisive because it supports the conclusion that the Respondent had opportunities and chose not to use them.

2. Litigation failure: leaving the Applicant’s pleadings unchallenged
   By failing to file a defence, the Respondent allowed the Applicant’s narrative to stand as the only articulated version of events, subject to the Court’s assessment of pleading adequacy. This is especially costly where the Applicant pleads specific rosters and calculations.

3. Strategic failure: allowing service evidence to accumulate
   Every served order and every warning notation strengthened the Court’s confidence to proceed. An employer who might have had an arguable defence loses practical leverage when it permits the Court to build a record that the employer was on notice.

4. Substantive failure: no alternative calculation model, no classification contest, no contest to the general protections chain
   Even modest engagement can sometimes narrow relief or correct calculation errors. Total silence guarantees that nothing is narrowed.

5. Enforcement risk: default judgment creates enforceable orders and a platform for penalties
   The Respondent’s non-participation did not merely lead to declarations and compensation; it also opened the way for the later determination of pecuniary penalties on the papers, increasing legal exposure.

Reference to Comparable Authorities

Engineered Thermal Systems Pty Limited v Salmon, In the Matter of Salmon & Speck Pty Ltd (In Liq) [2012] FCA 1159
Ratio summary: Default judgment is appropriate where service is established, a default judgment application is made, the statement of claim pleads each element of the relief claimed, and the relief claimed is appropriate. The Court’s satisfaction is assessed on the face of the pleading structure and procedural notifications.

Arthur v Vaupotic Investments Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 433
Ratio summary: In default judgment settings, the Court’s satisfaction does not require proof by evidence of the underlying claim in the same way as a contested hearing; the procedural posture changes what is required.

Luna Park v Bose [2006] FCA 94
Ratio summary: Reinforces the approach that default judgment can be granted without the usual evidentiary contest where proper procedural foundations are established, and it illustrates careful judicial emphasis on the Court’s discretion and the need to ensure pleading adequacy.

Implications

1. Complaining about lawful pay is not “being difficult”; it is exercising a workplace right
   If you raise a pay issue respectfully and with basic detail, the law tends to treat that act as protected. The key is to document what you asked and when you asked it.

2. Specific records beat vague memories
   A roster screenshot, a calendar entry, shift start and finish times, and messages about shifts can transform a dispute from a story into a calculation. The more specific your timeline, the harder it is for an employer to dismiss it as guesswork.

3. Payslips matter because they reveal the truth or the attempt to hide it
   If a payslip omits hours or shows a rate that does not match what you were paid, it is not merely an accounting error; it can indicate non-compliance and shape the Court’s view of the dispute.

4. Silence is not a defence, and avoidance is not a strategy that reduces risk
   An employer who ignores Court documents tends to face an escalating chain of consequences: default judgment, enforceable orders, interest, and the prospect of penalties.

5. Even short jobs can create serious legal rights
   A week or two of work is enough to generate entitlement to lawful minimum rates, penalties, overtime, and proper payslip compliance. If the money seems “too small to fight for”, remember that the system is designed to enforce minimum standards precisely in these settings.

Q&A Session

Q1: If an employer pays a higher hourly rate, can that cancel out penalty rates and overtime?
A: Sometimes a properly structured higher rate can be used in arrangements such as annualised wage provisions or set-off clauses, but it is relatively high risk to assume a flat rate cancels entitlements unless the arrangement complies with award requirements and the total paid is at least what the award would have required. In disputes like this, courts focus on whether the lawful minimum has actually been met for the hours and conditions worked.

Q2: Why did the Court grant default judgment without a full trial?
A: Because the procedural rules permit default judgment where the respondent is properly served, fails to file a defence, and the applicant’s statement of claim properly pleads the elements of each claim. The Court still exercises discretion cautiously and must be satisfied the relief is appropriate, but the respondent’s silence changes the procedural posture.

Q3: What should a worker keep if they think they are underpaid or retaliated against?
A: Keep a simple evidence pack: rosters or shift times, bank deposits, payslips, text or WhatsApp messages about pay, any complaint you made, and the employer’s response. The goal is not to gather everything; it is to preserve the timeline and the numbers.

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

Case Subtype: Hospitality Employment Underpayment and General Protections Adverse Action Dispute Determined on Default Judgment
Judgment Nature Definition: Final Judgment on default as to declarations and compensation, with pecuniary penalties programmed for later determination on the papers

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

This section is general information for reference only. Outcomes depend on the precise facts, applicable industrial instruments, and how evidence is assessed.

③ Employment and Workplace Disputes (Industrial Relations Law)

Core Test (Unfair Dismissal – Fair Work Act)

Step 1: Was there a valid reason for the dismissal related to capacity or conduct?
A valid reason tends to require an objectively defensible basis connected to what the worker did or could do, not mere irritation or inconvenience to management. If dismissal follows complaints about pay, the employer’s asserted reason is often tested against timing and communications.

Step 2: Was the person notified of that reason?
A fair process tends to require the employee be told the reason, not left to infer it. Sudden dismissal without explanation can weigh against procedural fairness.

Step 3: Was the person given an opportunity to respond?
Opportunity means a genuine chance to answer the allegation or issue. In small workplaces, informal conversations occur, but the Court often examines whether the worker could meaningfully respond before the decision was made.

Step 4: Was the dismissal harsh, unjust, or unreasonable?
This evaluation looks at the gravity of alleged conduct, proportionality of dismissal, procedural fairness, and the real-world impact. Even if there was some reason, dismissals can still be harsh if the penalty is disproportionate or the process was deficient.

Core Test (General Protections)

Step 1: Identify the workplace right
A workplace right can include being entitled to the benefit of workplace laws or instruments such as a modern award or the National Employment Standards, and the capacity to make complaints or inquiries about employment. The critical question is whether the employee did something the law protects, such as asking to be paid correctly.

Step 2: Identify the adverse action
Adverse action includes dismissal and other harmful changes to employment. The analysis focuses on what was done to the employee and when.

Step 3: Establish the prohibited reason, or reasons including a prohibited reason
The Court examines whether the adverse action was taken for a reason that is prohibited, or for reasons that included the prohibited reason. Timing, communications, and shifting explanations tend to be important.

Step 4: Consider the reverse onus structure
In general protections, once a claim is properly raised, the employer typically bears an evidentiary burden to demonstrate the decision was not taken for the prohibited reason. Non-participation creates a relatively high risk that the employer cannot discharge that burden.

Core Test (Sham Contracting)

Step 1: Characterise the relationship in substance
The Court tends to look at the reality of the working arrangement: control, integration into the business, ability to subcontract, and who bears commercial risk.

Step 2: Identify representations about status
A sham contracting risk increases where an employer represents an employee as an independent contractor to avoid entitlements.

Step 3: Assess purpose and effect
The key question is whether the arrangement was used to avoid obligations. Evidence can include rosters, uniform requirements, and how payment was administered.

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

This section is general information for reference only. Equity and common law claims can be fact-sensitive and may not be available where statutory schemes provide comprehensive remedies.

Procedural Fairness
If a decision-maker fails to give a person an opportunity to be heard or there is an apprehension of bias, procedural fairness can be engaged in judicial review contexts. In employment disputes under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), procedural fairness concepts can still matter indirectly when assessing the credibility of asserted reasons, the timing of decisions, and the plausibility of employer explanations.

Ancillary Claims
If an underpayment claim is contested on quantum, a worker can sometimes pursue alternative characterisations, such as claim pathways based on unpaid entitlements, contraventions linked to recordkeeping, or general protections. Where one pathway narrows, another may still provide relief, particularly where the evidentiary chain shows retaliation following complaints.

Promissory or Proprietary Estoppel
In employment, estoppel arguments can arise where clear representations about pay or hours are made and relied upon. The risk is that statutory minimums cannot be contracted out of, so estoppel tends to supplement, not replace, statutory rights. It may still be relevant where the dispute concerns additional promises above the statutory floor.

Unjust Enrichment or Restitution
In some contexts, a claim may be framed as the employer receiving a benefit from labour without paying the lawful value. In practice, statutory mechanisms under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) often provide the more direct route, but restitution principles can inform the justice of compensation where statutory remedies are engaged.

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

Regular Thresholds
1. General protections limitation period: Applications must generally be filed within the statutory timeframe, and delay can carry a relatively high risk of jurisdictional issues depending on the forum and claim type.
2. Underpayment claims: Limitation rules and the relevant civil remedy structure apply, and older claims can be constrained by statutory limits.
3. Award coverage and classification: The worker must show the modern award applies and the classification supports the claimed rates and loadings.
4. Proof structure: Even in default contexts, pleadings must set out each element with sufficient clarity.

Exceptional Channels
1. Where service is disputed: A respondent may seek to argue they were not properly served, which can sometimes support setting aside default judgment if promptly raised and supported by credible evidence.
2. Where there is a plausible defence with explanation for default: Courts can, in appropriate cases, remedy procedural unfairness, but the risk increases the longer a respondent remains silent after repeated notices.
3. Where vulnerability or power imbalance affects evidence: Courts may accept practical evidence sources such as messages and rosters, particularly where the employer’s records are missing or misleading.

Suggestion
Do not abandon a potential claim simply because the dispute seems short or the amounts appear modest. Carefully compare your circumstances against statutory thresholds and any exceptions, as the details of timing, documentation, and service can be decisive.

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

Citation Angle
It is recommended to cite this case in legal submissions or advice discussions involving default judgment in Fair Work proceedings, the relationship between pleading sufficiency and relief on default, and the practical handling of general protections and underpayment claims where a respondent employer fails to participate.

Citation Method
As Positive Support: When your matter involves proven service, repeated non-compliance, and a properly particularised statement of claim mapping each remedy to statutory power, citing this authority can strengthen the argument that default judgment and compensatory relief are appropriate.
As a Distinguishing Reference: If the opposing party cites this case, you should emphasise differences such as contested participation, disputed service, unclear pleadings, or genuinely complex factual disputes requiring evidentiary testing, to argue that default judgment reasoning is not directly applicable.

Anonymisation Rule
In describing the parties in narrative submissions, strictly use Applicant and Respondent and avoid real names of parties, while retaining the case citation in its original format where required for reference.

Conclusion

This case demonstrates that workplace rights are enforceable not only through contested trials, but also through disciplined pleadings and careful service where an employer refuses to engage. When the evidence chain is built from specific shift details, clear underpayment calculations, and documented complaints, the Court can convert silence into legally meaningful admissions and grant real remedies.

Golden Sentence: Everyone needs to understand the law and see the world through the lens of law. The in-depth analysis of this authentic judgment is intended to help everyone gradually establish a new legal mindset: True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

Disclaimer

This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Al-Areqi v 3 Lads Laverton Food Hub [2025] FedCFamC2G 687), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.

The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.

---

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.