Ramsay v Menso [2019] FCA 1273

Ramsay v Menso [2019] FCA 1273

The appeal was allowed because the successful applicants were the first and second appellants and, under the ordinary rule in Sayed, the penalties should have been paid to them. The primary Judge's view that s 546(3) permitted payment to the Commonwealth in these circumstances was contrary to Sayed, the Gibbs exception did not apply, and the primary Judge took into account an irrelevant consideration by focusing on the respondents' failure to heed Mr Williamson and Sergeant Greenwood while not considering that the infringed rights were those of the appellants.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Orders for Payment of Pecuniary Penalties for Contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth) / Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Orders in Ramsay V Menso (no 2) [2018] FCCA 1808
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
['pecuniary Penalties' 'right of Entry Permits' 'contravention of S 501 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth)' 'discretion Under S 546(3) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth)' 'recipient of Pecuniary Penalties' 'appellate Error']
['industrial Law' 'employment and Industrial Relations'] ['pecuniary Penalties' 'right of Entry Permits' 'contravention of S 501 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth)' 'discretion Under S 546(3) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth)' 'recipient of Pecuniary Penalties' 'appellate Error']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal Concerning Orders for Payment of Pecuniary Penalties for Contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth) / Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Orders in Ramsay V Menso (no 2) [2018] FCCA 1808

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary Judge erred by ordering the bulk of pecuniary penalties to be paid to the Commonwealth rather than to the successful applicants.' 'Whether the discretion under s 546(3) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) was exercised contrary to the ordinary rule that penalties are paid to the successful applicant.' "Whether the primary Judge took into account an irrelevant consideration by focusing on the respondents' failure to listen to Mr Williamson and Sergeant Greenwood."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the successful applicants were the first and second appellants and, under the ordinary rule in Sayed, the penalties should have been paid to them. The primary Judge's view that s 546(3) permitted payment to the Commonwealth in these circumstances was contrary to Sayed, the Gibbs exception did not apply, and the primary Judge took into account an irrelevant consideration by focusing on the respondents' failure to heed Mr Williamson and Sergeant Greenwood while not considering that the infringed rights were those of the appellants.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • ['The Appeal be allowed.' 'Orders 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the Order of the Federal Circuit Court given on 28 June 2018 at Brisbane in Ramsay v Menso (No 2) [2018] FCCA 1808 be varied by deleting the word "Commonwealth" at the end of each order and replacing it with "First and Second Applicants".']