Hajek, D. v. Lowinger, J.R. [1988] FCA 124

Hajek, D. v. Lowinger, J.R. [1988] FCA 124

The defendant pleaded guilty to the charges of failing to comply with inspector requirements and refusing inspector entry as required under the Act; the facts substantiate the offences, and penalties are warranted. Separate fines are imposed for each set of offences according to their distinct nature.

Parties
Prosecutor: Daniel Hajek; Defendant: Joyce Rose Lowinger
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 March 1988
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution / Sentencing
Outcome
conviction and sentence
Legal Topics
Offences Under Conciliation and Arbitration Act, Failure to Comply With Inspector's Requirement, Refusal of Entry to Inspector
Industrial Law Criminal Law Offences Under Conciliation and Arbitration Act Failure to Comply With Inspector's Requirement Refusal of Entry to Inspector

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Hajek

Prosecutor

Joyce Rose Lowinger

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution / Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether the defendant failed to comply with requirements made by an inspector under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904
  2. 2 whether the defendant refused entry to an inspector as required under the Act
  3. 3 appropriate penalty for offences under s. 125(10)(a) and s. 125(10)(b) of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant pleaded guilty to the charges of failing to comply with inspector requirements and refusing inspector entry as required under the Act; the facts substantiate the offences, and penalties are warranted. Separate fines are imposed for each set of offences according to their distinct nature.

Court Disposition

conviction and sentence

Orders

  • The defendant is fined $300 for offences in proceedings numbers 160 and 161 of 1987.
  • The defendant is fined $200 for the offence in proceeding number 162 of 1987.