Yes Insurance Group Pty Ltd v Fair Work Ombudsman [2024] FCA 1366

Yes Insurance Group Pty Ltd v Fair Work Ombudsman [2024] FCA 1366

The appeal was allowed in part. The primary judge correctly concluded the BFIA applied to Yes Insurance Group Pty Ltd as the employer engaged in the insurance industry with Mr Hazari's work covered by an award classification. No denial of procedural fairness was established. However, the penalties imposed below were manifestly excessive, given the nature of the contravention, the amount involved, corrective actions, and lack of prior civil penalty history, and were reduced to 25% of the maximum available.

Parties
First Appellant: Yes Insurance Group Pty Ltd; Second Appellant: Emma Rita Kimonides; Respondent: Fair Work Ombudsman
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (division 2)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Application and Coverage of Banking, Finance and Insurance Award 2020, Compliance Notice Under Fair Work Act 2009 (cth) S 716, Pecuniary Penalties, Procedural Fairness, Assessment of Penalty
Industrial Law Employment Law Application and Coverage of Banking, Finance and Insurance Award 2020 Compliance Notice Under Fair Work Act 2009 (cth) S 716 Pecuniary Penalties Procedural Fairness Assessment of Penalty

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 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yes Insurance Group Pty Ltd

First Appellant

Emma Rita Kimonides

Second Appellant

Fair Work Ombudsman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (division 2)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Yes Insurance Group Pty Ltd and the employment of Mr Hazari were covered by the Banking, Finance and Insurance Award 2020 (BFIA)
  2. 2 Whether the primary judge erred in finding Yes Assist was covered by the BFIA or provided services to the insurance industry
  3. 3 Whether the primary judge gave insufficient weight to lack of AFSL for Yes Assist

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed in part. The primary judge correctly concluded the BFIA applied to Yes Insurance Group Pty Ltd as the employer engaged in the insurance industry with Mr Hazari's work covered by an award classification. No denial of procedural fairness was established. However, the penalties imposed below were manifestly excessive, given the nature of the contravention, the amount involved, corrective actions, and lack of prior civil penalty history, and were reduced to 25% of the maximum available.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Appeal allowed in part.
  • Order 1 of the primary judge's orders set aside.