Compliance Notices and False Payslips: How Does the Court Fix a “Meaningful” Penalty for a Sole Trader Who Ignores Fair Work Enforcement?

Based on the authentic Australian judicial case BRG 144 of 2024, 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.

Source Judgment (for verification and professional reference)

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2), BRG 144 of 2024, Judge Egan, Reasons for Judgment dated 26 November 2025. :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information

Court of Hearing: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)

Presiding Judge: Judge Egan

Cause of Action: Industrial law enforcement proceeding seeking pecuniary penalties for contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), following a compliance notice and the provision of false or misleading payslips

Judgment Date: 26 November 2025

Core Keywords:

Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case

Keyword 2: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)

Keyword 3: Compliance notice enforcement

Keyword 4: Pecuniary penalties and general deterrence

Keyword 5: False or misleading payslips

Keyword 6: Sole trader non-compliance

Background

This proceeding concerns the enforcement end of workplace law, where the Applicant regulator pursued penalties against the Respondent after two kinds of alleged wrongdoing: first, failing to comply with a compliance notice issued under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), and second, giving employees payslips that the Respondent knew were false or misleading. The case is not about a disputed workplace accident or a complex contractual dispute. It is about minimum standards, basic record-keeping honesty, and what happens when an enforcement notice and then Court orders are ignored.

Core Disputes and Claims

The legal focus was not whether the Respondent had already contravened the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). That issue had been determined earlier by default judgment, with admissions taken to have been made because the Respondent failed to participate in required procedural steps.

The live dispute for determination at the final hearing was the penalty question:

1. What pecuniary penalty should be imposed under s 546(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) for:
   • contravening s 716(5) by failing to comply with a compliance notice, and
   • contravening s 536(3) by giving payslips that were false or misleading, knowingly?
2. Should any reduction be applied on totality principles, and if so, on what basis?

Relief sought:

Applicant: Orders imposing pecuniary penalties, framed at substantial proportions of the statutory maximums, and orders to ensure compliance with payment and enforcement mechanisms.

Respondent: The Respondent did not appear and filed no penalty evidence or submissions for the final hearing, so no articulated relief was advanced by the Respondent at that stage.

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The relationship between the parties was not a commercial bargain between two private actors. It was a regulatory relationship, triggered by alleged underpayment and compliance failures involving employees.

The critical sequence, as reconstructed from the Court’s reasons, ran as follows:

1. The Applicant issued a compliance notice to the Respondent on 5 December 2022. A compliance notice is a formal statutory mechanism used to require steps to rectify identified non-compliance with workplace obligations, commonly including repayment of underpaid amounts and rectification of entitlements.

2. The Respondent did not comply with the compliance notice. The non-compliance did not stop at a technical failure; the Court’s reasons indicate outstanding amounts remained unpaid to the named employees, and the compliance steps required were not performed.

3. The Applicant commenced Court proceedings. The proceeding progressed procedurally, but the Respondent did not engage in a way that met Court rules and directions.

4. Default judgment was entered on 20 September 2024. Because the Respondent failed to take required procedural steps, the Court entered default judgment and made declarations that, on admissions taken to have been made, the Respondent had contravened:

   • s 716(5) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) by failing to comply with the compliance notice, and
   • s 536(3) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) by giving six payslips that were false and misleading, knowing that to be so.
5. The Court also made orders compelling practical remediation, including payment of specified outstanding amounts, consequential superannuation, and interest, with directions for distribution to the affected employees, and then adjourned the penalty question to a later date.

6. A further hearing was fixed for penalties, but the Respondent did not appear at the final hearing either.

Detail Reconstruction: The Financial Interweaving and the Drift into Dispute

In many employment disputes, the practical conflict begins with everyday payroll realities: a rostered shift, an hourly rate, a payslip that should match the work performed, and superannuation that should follow wages. The reasons indicate outstanding amounts were identified for two employees, and the compliance notice required repayment. When payments are not made, each pay cycle is not just a financial issue; it becomes an evidentiary trail. Payslips, bank transfers, superannuation statements, and communications all become the record of whether lawful minimum standards were met.

Here, the conflict deepened because the enforcement steps did not produce compliance. The Court’s reasons emphasise that the Respondent did not meaningfully engage after the compliance notice was served, and later did not comply with Court orders requiring repayment and related steps.

Conflict Foreshadowing: The Decisive Moments

The decisive moments were procedural and behavioural:

• The Respondent’s failure to comply with the compliance notice.
• The Respondent’s failure to participate in the proceeding in a way required by the rules, leading to default judgment.
• The Respondent’s failure to comply with post-judgment orders requiring payment, superannuation adjustments, and interest.
• The Respondent’s non-appearance at the penalty hearing.

These are not mere formalities. In regulatory litigation, non-engagement itself becomes a material factor in assessing deterrence and the appropriateness of any discount for cooperation or contrition.

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Applicant’s Main Evidence and Arguments

Because the Respondent did not participate at the penalty stage, the material that drove the penalty outcome was the Applicant’s affidavit evidence and submissions.

The Court accepted that the evidence established:

1. Ongoing non-compliance after service of the compliance notice.
2. Non-payment of the outstanding amounts to the identified employees, in the approximate amounts of AUD $3,130.00 and AUD $2,542.00 as described in the reasons.
3. Non-compliance with Court orders made after default judgment requiring repayment, superannuation rectification, and interest.
4. Absence of contrition or regret, and failure to cooperate meaningfully during the proceeding.

The Applicant’s penalty position, as recorded by the Court, was:

• For the compliance notice contravention, a penalty of AUD $6,600.00, described as 80 per cent of the maximum.
• For the misleading payslips contravention, a penalty of AUD $8,658.00, described as 65 per cent of the maximum.
• A submission that the combined total should be reduced by 20 per cent on totality principles.

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments

There were none at the penalty hearing. The Respondent was unrepresented and did not appear. No evidence or submissions were filed by the Respondent for penalties.

Core Dispute Points

Even without a contest on liability, the penalty hearing still had core decision-points:

1. Deterrence: Whether penalties needed to be imposed at a meaningful level to deter similar conduct by other small businesses, not merely to punish the Respondent.

2. Contrition and discounting: Whether the Court should reduce the penalty on any basis, including totality, and whether discounting requires demonstrated contrition and remedial action.

3. Proportionality and oppression: Ensuring the penalty was not crushing or oppressive, while still reflecting seriousness.

4. Totality: Whether imposing separate penalties for separate contraventions created an overall penalty that required adjustment to avoid an excessive aggregate outcome.

5. Enforcement context: The Court had to assess penalties in the context of repeated non-compliance, including non-compliance with the original compliance notice and later Court orders.

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

Affidavits do more than recite facts. In penalty proceedings, they are the vehicle by which the Applicant constructs a story of regulatory need: what was required, what was not done, what opportunities were offered, and why a strong penalty is necessary.

How Each Side Uses Affidavits to Build a Persuasive Statement

Applicant’s affidavit strategy, as reflected in the reasons, centred on building a coherent chain:

• The compliance notice existed, was issued on a specific date, and was served.
• The Respondent failed to comply with it.
• The Respondent then failed to engage with the proceeding, leading to default judgment.
• Even after Court orders requiring repayment and associated steps, the Respondent did not comply.
• No practical steps were taken to rectify wrongdoing, and the Respondent showed no contrition or regret.
• Therefore, the penalty needed to prioritise general deterrence and be imposed at a meaningful level.

Respondent’s affidavit strategy was absent. That absence matters, because it removes the usual countervailing material that may support a lower penalty, such as evidence of financial hardship, evidence of partial payment, evidence of changed practices, evidence of cooperation, or evidence of genuine misunderstanding corrected by training and systems.

Comparing Expressions of the Same Fact: The Boundary Between Untruths and Facts

In this case, the sharp boundary is not between two competing narratives in affidavits. It is between:

• formal compliance mechanisms and the objective documentary trail showing non-compliance, and
• any unsupported stated intention to repay, which the Court recorded as not being brought to fruition.

Where a party says they intend to fix an underpayment but does not do so, the legal system increasingly treats that gap as evidence relevant to deterrence and contrition. The Court did not treat stated intention as mitigation without real-world follow-through.

Strategic Intent Behind Procedural Directions About Affidavits

The Court’s procedural directions requiring evidence and submissions on penalties served at least three strategic purposes:

1. Procedural fairness: Giving the Respondent an opportunity to put forward mitigating material before penalties were fixed.

2. Efficiency: Ensuring the Court had a structured evidentiary record on matters relevant to penalties, including conduct during the proceeding, any remedial steps, and the context of non-compliance.

3. Deterrence integrity: Allowing the Court to calibrate penalties on evidence, rather than on speculation, consistent with the principle that penalties must be reasoned and proportionate.

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Before the final penalty orders, the Court’s procedural pathway included:

1. Default judgment and declarations of contraventions, made because the Respondent failed to take required procedural steps, including filing a response and defence and complying with a prior Court order.

2. Orders requiring the Respondent to perform the steps required by the compliance notice, including:

   • payment of specified outstanding amounts,
   • payment of associated superannuation contributions required by the applicable award clause,
   • provision of evidence of compliance,
   • payment of pre-judgment interest at the applicable rate, and
   • distribution of paid sums to the employees by the Applicant within a specified timeframe.
3. Orders listing the matter for a further hearing on penalties, with directions for filing evidence and submissions by each party by specified deadlines.

4. Subsequent listing orders to fix the penalty hearing date and adjust timetables.

These orders show a standard enforcement architecture: declarations of contravention, remedial orders, interest, distribution mechanisms, and then a later penalty hearing where deterrence and proportionality are assessed.

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

Perspective

Strict, objective third-party perspective.

Process Reconstruction: Live Restoration

The penalty hearing took place in Brisbane, with the Applicant represented. The Respondent did not appear and was unrepresented. The hearing proceeded in the Respondent’s absence. In practical terms, that meant:

• There was no cross-examination of the Applicant’s deponents.
• There was no competing narrative about compliance steps.
• There was no evidentiary basis laid by the Respondent for mitigation, such as inability to pay, genuine mistake corrected, or prompt restitution.

The Court proceeded on the affidavit material and submissions filed on behalf of the Applicant.

Core Evidence Confrontation

The decisive confrontation was not between two witnesses. It was between:

• the statutory and judicial expectation of compliance with a compliance notice and Court orders, and
• the documentary and procedural reality that compliance did not occur.

The Court was satisfied that the Respondent failed to engage meaningfully after service of the compliance notice, and that the specified outstanding amounts were not paid. The Court also noted continued non-compliance with Court orders and the absence of payments.

Judicial Reasoning: How Facts Drove the Result

The key legal logic was penalty logic, not liability logic. The Court fixed penalties by applying:

• general deterrence principles,
• the significance of contrition and remediation in discounting,
• the caution that penalties should not be crushing or oppressive, balanced against seriousness,
• the role of meaningful sanctions to mark disapproval and warn others, including small businesses.

Judicial Original Quotation Principle: Determinative Dicta

The Court adopted and applied the principle that general deterrence can be paramount, including for small businesses, and that penalties must be meaningful. The reasons relied on authority emphasising that small employers are not exempt from minimum standards.

“even if there be no need for specific deterrence, there will be occasions when general deterrence must take priority, and in that case a penalty should be imposed to mark the law’s disapproval of the conduct in question, and to act as a warning to others not to engage in similar conduct … No less than large corporate employers, small businesses have an obligation to meet minimum employment standards … When it does not it will, normally, be necessary to mark the failure by imposing an appropriate monetary sanction. Such a sanction ‘must be imposed at a meaningful level’.”

This statement was determinative because it supplied the Court’s penalty compass: the case demanded a sanction that spoke beyond the Respondent and addressed the broader compliance environment. The Respondent’s status as a sole trader could not be used as an excuse to soften the response into insignificance.

The Court also rejected the proposed overall reduction because the evidentiary foundation for leniency, namely contrition and remediation, was absent.

“A 20% reduction in penalty would only be appropriate in circumstances where regret and contrition had been demonstrated on the part of the respondent. That was not the case here.”

This was determinative because it anchored the totality argument to a factual precondition: demonstrated contrition. Without that, totality did not operate as a general “discount button”; it remained a principle to avoid oppression, not to reward recalcitrance.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Court ordered, pursuant to s 546(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), that the Respondent pay a pecuniary penalty totalling AUD $15,258.00 to the Commonwealth of Australia Consolidated Revenue Fund by 4:00 pm on 23 January 2026.

The penalty comprised:

• AUD $6,600.00 for the compliance notice contravention under s 716(5), and
• AUD $8,658.00 for the misleading payslips contravention under s 536(3).

The Court also granted the Applicant liberty to apply on 7 days’ notice if the penalty order was not complied with.

The order included the standard enforcement endorsement under the Court’s rules warning that failure to comply with orders may expose a defaulting party to contempt consequences, including imprisonment, sequestration of property, or punishment for contempt.

This penalty judgment sat within a procedural history that had already included default judgment declarations and remedial orders for back payment, superannuation, and interest.

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

Special Analysis

This is a short judgment, but it is jurisprudentially valuable because it demonstrates a recurring judicial theme in workplace enforcement: deterrence is not reserved for large corporations. Where a sole trader shows no contrition, does not remediate, does not cooperate, and ignores both a compliance notice and Court orders, the Court will treat general deterrence as the governing consideration and will resist discounting.

The case also illustrates an important practical truth: penalty hearings are evidence-driven. If a respondent does not put forward any mitigating evidence, the Court is left with the regulator’s narrative and objective non-compliance, and the penalty calculus becomes straightforward.

Judgment Points

1. Default judgment can conclusively determine contraventions, leaving penalties as the only live issue.
   • The Court had already made declarations of contraventions based on admissions taken to have been made due to default.
   • This meant the Respondent’s later silence did not merely weaken her case; it locked in liability and left only penalty discretion.
2. Non-compliance after a compliance notice escalates regulatory seriousness.
   • A compliance notice is designed to correct wrongdoing without the need for litigation.
   • When it is ignored, litigation becomes necessary, and penalties serve a public function: not only to punish, but to protect compliance mechanisms from becoming toothless.
3. Failure to comply with Court orders after default judgment compounds the penalty context.
   • The Court noted not only original non-compliance, but continued non-compliance with orders requiring repayment and associated steps.
   • This is behaviour the Court treats as aggravating because it signals that enforcement tools have not changed conduct.
4. Contrition is evidenced by action, not words.
   • The Court noted that stated intentions to repay were not brought to fruition.
   • In penalty discourse, contrition is most reliably shown by restitution, cooperation, and changed practices.
5. Sole trader status is not a mitigating talisman.
   • The Court explicitly addressed that small business status does not excuse non-compliance.
   • The logic is systemic: if small employers could evade meaningful penalties, minimum standards would become unevenly enforced.
6. Totality does not automatically produce a percentage reduction.
   • The Applicant proposed a 20 per cent reduction on totality principles.
   • The Court rejected it, emphasising that such a reduction would only be appropriate where contrition and regret were demonstrated.
7. Penalties must avoid being crushing or oppressive, but must still be commensurate with seriousness.
   • The Court acknowledged the non-crushing principle.
   • It nonetheless imposed penalties at substantial proportions of maximums, reflecting the seriousness of the conduct and the need for deterrence.
8. The Court’s discretion is guided by comparable authority, but anchored to the specific compliance behaviour before it.
   • The judgment cited and applied prior cases to structure the deterrence and discounting analysis.
   • The decisive features were the Respondent’s conduct: non-compliance, non-appearance, lack of contrition, and non-remediation.

Legal Basis

The judgment logic expressly relied on:

• Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 716(5): Contravention by failing to comply with a compliance notice.
• Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 536(3): Contravention by giving a payslip that is false or misleading, knowingly.
• Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 546(1): Power to order pecuniary penalties for contraventions.
• Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 545(1): Power to make orders for compliance and rectification.
• Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 547(2): Interest orders in relation to amounts owed.

The key penalty concepts applied were:

• General deterrence: penalties designed to influence others in the regulated community.
• Contrition and discounting: reductions in penalties are linked to demonstrated remorse, cooperation, and remediation.
• Totality: the aggregate penalty must be fair and not oppressive, but totality is not a universal reduction mechanism.

Evidence Chain

Conclusion equals evidence plus statutory provisions can be shown through the chain:

1. Evidence: Compliance notice issued and served.
   • Statute: s 716(5) sets the obligation to comply; contravention occurs upon failure.
2. Evidence: Outstanding amounts remained unpaid to the identified employees.
   • Statute: Compliance notice mechanism and the Court’s remedial powers under s 545(1) support the need for enforcement.
3. Evidence: The Respondent failed to meaningfully engage and did not comply with Court orders post-default judgment.
   • Penalty principle: Persistent non-compliance elevates the need for general deterrence.
4. Evidence: No contrition, no regret, no remediation, no cooperation.
   • Penalty principle: No discounting where positive behavioural change is absent.
5. Evidence: Separate contraventions: compliance notice non-compliance and knowingly false or misleading payslips.
   • Statute: Separate contraventions justify separate penalties under s 546(1), with totality considered as a fairness check, not an entitlement.

Judicial Original Quotation

The Court adopted the view that general deterrence may take priority and that penalties must be meaningful:

“even if there be no need for specific deterrence, there will be occasions when general deterrence must take priority, and in that case a penalty should be imposed to mark the law’s disapproval of the conduct in question, and to act as a warning to others not to engage in similar conduct … No less than large corporate employers, small businesses have an obligation to meet minimum employment standards … When it does not it will, normally, be necessary to mark the failure by imposing an appropriate monetary sanction. Such a sanction ‘must be imposed at a meaningful level’.”

This was determinative because it framed the Respondent’s status as irrelevant to the core public purpose of penalties and justified imposing penalties at a level that would be noticed.

The Court also directly rejected discounting absent contrition:

“A 20% reduction in penalty would only be appropriate in circumstances where regret and contrition had been demonstrated on the part of the respondent. That was not the case here.”

This was determinative because it made clear that the totality submission did not succeed without an evidentiary basis that could justify leniency.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure

The Respondent’s failure, legally and strategically, can be analysed in five connected layers:

1. Failure to engage with the compliance notice:
   • The compliance notice exists to resolve underpayment and entitlement issues without litigation.
   • Ignoring it triggered Court enforcement and increased seriousness.
2. Failure to participate in proceedings:
   • The Respondent did not take basic procedural steps, leading to default judgment and admissions taken to have been made.
   • This stripped away the ability to contest liability and left only penalties.
3. Failure to comply with Court orders after default judgment:
   • Non-compliance with repayment, superannuation adjustments, and interest orders conveyed recalcitrance.
4. Failure to provide mitigation evidence:
   • Without evidence of hardship, restitution, cooperation, or changed practices, there was no factual platform for discounting.
5. Failure to demonstrate contrition:
   • The Court treated the absence of contrition as a reason to maintain strong penalties and refuse the proposed aggregate reduction.

Reference to Comparable Authorities

Kelly v Fitzpatrick [2007] FCA 1080: The authority emphasises that general deterrence can be paramount and that small businesses, like large employers, must meet minimum standards, with penalties imposed at a meaningful level to mark disapproval and warn others.

Fair Work Ombudsman v IE Enterprises Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 60: The authority is used for the proposition that absence of contrition and regret is a significant consideration in penalty assessment and supports a deterrence-focused penalty response.

Fair Work Ombudsman v Equine Robinson Pty Ltd [2023] FedCFamC2G 159: The authority supports the principle that contrition is shown by steps taken to alleviate wrongdoing and change behaviour, and that discounting is relevant only where actual contrition and remedial intent are demonstrated; where such behaviour is absent, deterrent penalties remain necessary.

Key to Victory

The Applicant’s success was grounded in a clean enforcement narrative and an evidence-based penalty submission:

• Clear proof of an issued compliance notice and subsequent non-compliance.
• Demonstrated non-payment of outstanding employee amounts.
• Demonstrated non-compliance with Court orders post-default judgment.
• Persuasive reliance on established deterrence authority.
• A coherent submission on proportional penalties for each contravention, coupled with a totality submission that, even though rejected, showed engagement with fairness principles.

Disassembly of Judgment Basis: 8 In-depth Victory Points

1. Victory Point 1: Penalty hearings are not about sympathy; they are about regulatory purpose and evidence.
   • Conclusion: High penalties are justified.
   • Evidence: Persistent non-compliance and non-appearance.
   • Statutory provisions: s 546(1) empowers penalty orders; the contraventions were already declared.
   • Why it mattered: In a system of minimum employment standards, penalties signal enforceability. Where the evidence shows a respondent has not altered conduct, deterrence intensifies.
2. Victory Point 2: Compliance notices are treated as serious enforcement tools, not informal warnings.
   • Conclusion: A distinct penalty for failing to comply with a compliance notice was warranted.
   • Evidence: The Court was satisfied the Respondent failed to engage meaningfully and did not comply.
   • Statutory provisions: s 716(5).
   • Why it mattered: If compliance notices were ignored without meaningful consequence, the regulatory model would degrade into expensive litigation for every small underpayment.
3. Victory Point 3: Knowingly false or misleading payslips go to the integrity of payroll records.
   • Conclusion: A substantial penalty for payslip contraventions was warranted.
   • Evidence: Declarations already made that the Respondent gave six payslips she knew were false and misleading.
   • Statutory provisions: s 536(3).
   • Why it mattered: Payslips are not paperwork trivia. They are the employee’s window into wages and entitlements. If payslips are knowingly false, the risk of concealed underpayment rises, and compliance monitoring becomes harder.
4. Victory Point 4: Lack of contrition blocks the pathway to discounting.
   • Conclusion: No reduction on the proposed 20 per cent basis.
   • Evidence: No payments made, no cooperation, no meaningful engagement, no remorse demonstrated.
   • Statutory provisions: s 546(1) discretion; penalty principles from comparable authorities.
   • Why it mattered: Courts often reward prompt rectification and cooperation. The absence of those features removes the rationale for leniency.
5. Victory Point 5: Totality is a fairness check, not a reward for serial non-compliance.
   • Conclusion: Separate penalties were appropriate without a discretionary reduction.
   • Evidence: Two distinct contraventions with distinct regulatory harms.
   • Statutory provisions: s 546(1) and judicial penalty principles.
   • Why it mattered: Totality prevents oppressive outcomes, but it does not operate as a default percentage discount, especially where there is no contrition.
6. Victory Point 6: Sole trader status does not diminish deterrence.
   • Conclusion: Penalties must still be meaningful for small operators.
   • Evidence: The Court expressly addressed that small businesses must meet minimum standards.
   • Statutory provisions: The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) is of general application; penalty discretion is guided by deterrence.
   • Why it mattered: If enforcement only bit large employers, the compliance culture in smaller operations would weaken, and vulnerable workers would be disproportionately exposed.
7. Victory Point 7: Non-compliance with Court orders is aggravating conduct.
   • Conclusion: Strong penalties are justified where prior orders were ignored.
   • Evidence: The Court noted continued non-compliance with repayment, superannuation, and interest orders.
   • Statutory provisions: s 545(1) and s 547(2) orders were made; penalties then followed under s 546(1).
   • Why it mattered: Ignoring Court orders challenges the authority of the Court itself. Penalties in that context protect institutional credibility.
8. Victory Point 8: The regulator’s evidentiary discipline wins when the respondent is silent.
   • Conclusion: The Court accepted the Applicant’s penalty framework.
   • Evidence: Affidavit material and submissions were unchallenged; the Respondent did not appear.
   • Statutory provisions: Procedural rules permitted hearing in absence; penalties imposed under s 546(1).
   • Why it mattered: Silence is not neutral. In civil penalty litigation, failing to provide a counter-story often means the regulator’s version becomes the practical truth for the purpose of penalty discretion.

Implications

1. If you receive a compliance notice, treat it as a decisive legal turning point.
   A compliance notice is an opportunity to fix a problem before it becomes public litigation. Ignoring it tends to be assessed as a serious compliance attitude problem, and the risk of penalties rises sharply.

2. Payslips are legal documents with real consequences.
   A payslip is not just a wage summary. If payslips are false or misleading, especially knowingly, the conduct tends to be viewed as striking at the integrity of the workplace system.

3. Courts often measure remorse through action, not explanation.
   If you have made a mistake, practical repayment and genuine cooperation usually carry more weight than promises or intentions that never become real.

4. Procedural silence can become substantive defeat.
   Even where you feel overwhelmed, failing to file documents or attend hearings can lock in outcomes through default mechanisms and remove your ability to influence penalty discretion.

5. Workplace law is designed to be universal, not size-based.
   Small business status does not immunise an employer from minimum standards. It is often precisely in smaller workplaces that deterrence messages need to be clearly heard.

Q&A Session

Q1: If a respondent does not appear, does the Court automatically impose the maximum penalty?
A1: No. The Court must still exercise discretion and impose a penalty that is proportionate and reasoned. However, non-appearance often means there is no mitigation evidence, and the Court may be left with strong deterrence factors and unchallenged affidavit material supporting substantial penalties.

Q2: Why does the Court emphasise general deterrence so strongly in workplace penalty cases?
A2: Because workplace laws depend on broad compliance. Penalties are not only about the specific employer; they are designed to influence the behaviour of other employers who may be watching and deciding whether compliance is optional.

Q3: What usually leads to a lower penalty in cases like this?
A3: Factors that tend to support a lower penalty include early admissions, cooperation with the regulator, prompt repayment of underpayments, evidence of changed practices and training, genuine contrition shown through corrective action, and credible evidence about capacity to pay that supports a non-oppressive but still meaningful sanction.

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

Case Subtype: Industrial Relations Law enforcement proceeding for civil penalty orders arising from failure to comply with a compliance notice and provision of knowingly false or misleading payslips

Judgment Nature Definition: Final judgment on penalties following earlier default judgment on contraventions

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

Execution Instruction Applied: Employment and Workplace Disputes (Industrial Relations Law)

Core Test: Civil Penalty Exposure Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) in Enforcement Proceedings

Step 1: Identify the statutory obligation engaged.
– For a compliance notice: assess whether a valid compliance notice was issued and served, and what steps it required.
– For payslips: assess whether payslips were required, whether they were false or misleading, and whether knowledge can be established.

Step 2: Identify the contravention element-by-element.

Compliance notice contravention, s 716(5):
– Was a compliance notice issued under the Act?
– Was it served in accordance with the Act and any applicable requirements?
– Did it require specific steps within a timeframe?
– Did the recipient fail to comply with those required steps within the relevant period?
– Are there any statutory exceptions or factual circumstances that tend to negate non-compliance, such as proof that the steps were taken, or proof that the notice was invalid?

Payslip contravention, s 536(3):
– Were payslips required to be given to employees?
– Were payslips given?
– Were those payslips false or misleading?
– Was the falsity or misleading nature material to wages, hours, entitlements, or other legally significant matters?
– Did the employer know that the payslip was false or misleading at the time it was given?

Step 3: Establish the evidence chain required to prove contraventions.
– Compliance notice pathway tends to rely on:
– the notice itself, proof of service, the specified requirements, and proof of non-compliance.
– Payslip pathway tends to rely on:
– the payslips, the underlying time and wage records, bank statements, rosters, communications, and evidence of knowledge.

Step 4: Understand penalty discretion under s 546(1).
A Court fixing penalties typically considers:
– seriousness of the conduct,
– whether there was deliberate conduct or repeated non-compliance,
– whether underpayments were rectified,
– cooperation with the regulator,
– contrition evidenced by actions,
– prior compliance history,
– deterrence needs, including general deterrence,
– totality, ensuring the aggregate penalty is not oppressive.

Step 5: Evaluate “discounting” conditions.
Discounting tends to be available where there is:
– timely cooperation,
– admissions,
– demonstrated contrition,
– concrete remedial steps, including repayment,
– implementation of compliance systems.

Step 6: Check oppression risk without making absolute claims.
– Penalties should not be crushing or oppressive, particularly for individuals or small operators.
– However, the “non-crushing” consideration rarely justifies a negligible penalty where deterrence and seriousness demand otherwise.
– Evidence about financial circumstances tends to matter; absence of such evidence tends to increase the risk of a higher penalty.

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

Equity and Common Law Counter-attack Pathways in Employment and Administrative Enforcement Contexts

Procedural Fairness:
– In regulatory and administrative contexts, a party may contend that the decision-maker failed to afford natural justice, including:
– no genuine opportunity to be heard,
– failure to disclose critical adverse material,
– apprehension of bias,
– failure to consider relevant considerations or consideration of irrelevant considerations.
– In a Court proceeding, procedural fairness is usually delivered through rules, directions, and opportunities to file evidence and submissions.
– A party who does not participate may find it difficult to later argue procedural unfairness because the opportunity existed but was not taken.

Ancillary Claims:
– If an employer faces enforcement for underpayments, and a particular claim fails, alternative issues sometimes arise:
– whether the worker was properly classified under the relevant award,
– whether ordinary hours and penalty rates were correctly applied,
– whether record-keeping failures created presumptions or forensic disadvantages.
– In some cases, disputes can shift from an underpayment claim into an argument about adverse action, where the reverse onus of proof can be significant. However, that depends on factual circumstances and is not automatic.

Non-absolute caution:
– These alternative pathways tend to be determined by the specific procedural history and evidence. A party’s prospects are relatively higher when they have preserved evidence, complied with directions, and raised issues promptly.

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

Regular Thresholds:
– Compliance notice response window: A compliance notice typically sets a timeframe to comply, and ignoring it tends to escalate enforcement risk.
– Court proceeding deadlines: Filing a response and defence within the rules’ timeframe is a hard procedural requirement; failing to do so can lead to default judgment.
– Penalty hearing deadlines: Timetables for evidence and submissions are strict; failure to comply tends to remove the opportunity to influence penalty discretion.

Exceptional Channels:
– Setting aside default judgment: A respondent may sometimes seek to set aside default judgment where there is a credible explanation for default and a reasonably arguable defence. Success tends to depend on promptness, explanation, and merits.
– Variation to correct minor errors: Courts have powers to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors in orders, but this is not a pathway to re-litigate substance.
– Enforcement flexibility: Courts and regulators may sometimes accept structured repayment arrangements, but that tends to require proactive engagement and credible evidence.

Suggestion:
Do not abandon engagement because you fear the outcome. Even where liability seems difficult, active participation tends to preserve procedural options, improve evidence quality, and may reduce the risk of severe penalties.

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

Citation Angle:
It is recommended to cite this case in legal submissions or professional discussions involving:
– penalties for failure to comply with compliance notices under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth),
– penalty calibration for knowingly false or misleading payslips,
– the importance of general deterrence for small businesses and sole traders,
– the relationship between contrition, remediation, and discounting,
– totality submissions where separate contraventions attract separate penalties.

Citation Method:
As Positive Support:
– Where your matter involves persistent non-compliance, absence of contrition, and the need for general deterrence, this authority can support an argument that penalties should be imposed at a meaningful level.

As a Distinguishing Reference:
– If the opposing party cites this case, you may emphasise distinguishing features such as:
– prompt repayment and remediation in your case,
– early admissions and cooperation,
– evidence of genuine compliance reforms,
– credible evidence about financial position supporting a non-oppressive penalty,
– active participation in proceedings.

Anonymisation Rule:
In any public-facing summary or publication, do not use party names. Use Applicant and Respondent, and identify the matter by file number, court, judge, and judgment date.

Conclusion

This judgment demonstrates that workplace compliance tools only work when backed by real consequences: ignoring a compliance notice, providing knowingly false payslips, and refusing to engage with Court processes tends to attract penalties set to deter, not to excuse.

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 (BRG 144 of 2024), 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.