Fair Work Ombudsman v Blakeley [2023] FCA 1597

Fair Work Ombudsman v Blakeley [2023] FCA 1597

Each penalty is assessed on admitted contraventions, seriousness in the mid-range, some mitigating effect for admissions (though late), no aggravating factors, recurrence warranting specific deterrence, and the CFMEU’s size and history justifies larger penalties. Personal payment order not warranted for second respondent as conduct was comparable to first respondent and circumstances do not justify it.

Parties
Applicant: Fair Work Ombudsman; First Respondent: Andrew Blakeley; Second Respondent: Luke Gibson; Third Respondent: Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil (penalty Proceedings) / Judgment on Penalty After Admissions
Outcome
Pecuniary penalties imposed. No costs order. No personal payment order.
Legal Topics
Contraventions of Fair Work Act, Pecuniary Penalties, Industrial Action and Entry Permits, Misrepresentations of Authority, Obstruction at Worksites, Deterrence in Penalty, Personal Payment Orders
Employment Law Industrial Law Contraventions of Fair Work Act Pecuniary Penalties Industrial Action and Entry Permits Misrepresentations of Authority Obstruction at Worksites Deterrence in Penalty +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fair Work Ombudsman

Applicant

Andrew Blakeley

First Respondent

Luke Gibson

Second Respondent

Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil (penalty Proceedings) / Judgment on Penalty After Admissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What penalty is appropriate for admitted contraventions of ss 500 and 503 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)?
  2. 2 Were the respondents' actions aggravated or mitigated by motive, seriousness, or prior contraventions?
  3. 3 Should personal payment orders (non-indemnification) be made?

Ratio Decidendi

Each penalty is assessed on admitted contraventions, seriousness in the mid-range, some mitigating effect for admissions (though late), no aggravating factors, recurrence warranting specific deterrence, and the CFMEU’s size and history justifies larger penalties. Personal payment order not warranted for second respondent as conduct was comparable to first respondent and circumstances do not justify it.

Court Disposition

Pecuniary penalties imposed. No costs order. No personal payment order.

Orders

  • First respondent (Andrew Blakeley) to pay $14,000 in pecuniary penalties to Commonwealth within 30 days.
  • Second respondent (Luke Gibson) to pay $7,000 in pecuniary penalties to Commonwealth within 30 days.