Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v PattinsonCitation:[2022] HCA 13Before:Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson JJDate:13 Apr 2022Case Number:M34/2021Read more

The Court held that the discretion under s 546 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) to impose a pecuniary penalty is not limited by criminal law proportionality, and the statutory maximum penalty is not confined to the worst category of conduct.

Parties: Applicant: Applicant; Respondent: First Respondent (Union Officer); Respondent: Second Respondent (Union)
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 13 April 2022
Procedural Posture: Civil / Judgment
Outcome: Judgment for the applicant
Legal Topics: Pecuniary Penalties, False or Misleading Representation, Civil Remedy Provision, Discretion in Penalty, Proportionality, Deterrence

Industrial Law Pecuniary Penalties False or Misleading Representation Civil Remedy Provision Discretion in Penalty Proportionality Deterrence

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

Applicant

First Respondent (Union Officer)

Respondent

Second Respondent (Union)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the discretion under s 546 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) is constrained by the notion of proportionality drawn from criminal law
2 Whether the statutory maximum penalty for a civil remedy provision may be imposed only for the worst category of contravening conduct

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Judgment for the applicant

Orders

Pecuniary penalties imposed on the first and second respondents for contraventions of s 349(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)