Veeraragoo v Goldbreak Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] FCA 1448

Veeraragoo v Goldbreak Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] FCA 1448

It was appropriate to order Mr Wright personally to compensate the applicant because he was the general manager, was personally involved in and instigated the contravening dismissal conduct, the conduct occurred at his direction or with his full knowledge and support, and Goldbreak was in administration. Compensation was confined to losses causally connected with the contraventions: unpaid salary and notice, outstanding annual leave, general damages for distress, and interest. Further compensation for 17 weeks without work was refused because the applicant would have resigned on two weeks notice and the extended unemployment was not shown to result from the contraventions. A single...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Industrial Law Application for Pecuniary Penalties and Compensation Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth) / Assessment of Compensation, Damages and Penalties After Default Judgment Against the Second Respondent
Outcome
The second respondent was ordered to pay the applicant compensation of $8,191.86 plus interest and a monetary penalty of $20,000 payable to the applicant.
Legal Topics
['fair Work Act Contraventions' 'termination of Employment' 'personal Leave and Temporary Absence Due to Illness' 'false or Misleading Representation About Abandonment of Employment' 'accessory Liability' 'compensation' 'pecuniary Penalties' 'payment of Penalties to Applicant']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['fair Work Act Contraventions' 'termination of Employment' 'personal Leave and Temporary Absence Due to Illness' 'false or Misleading Representation About Abandonment of Employment' 'accessory Liability' 'compensation' 'pecuniary Penalties' 'payment of Penalties to Applicant']

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

Industrial Law Application for Pecuniary Penalties and Compensation Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth) / Assessment of Compensation, Damages and Penalties After Default Judgment Against the Second Respondent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether compensatory orders should be made against the second respondent personally for contraventions by Goldbreak in which he was involved.' "What compensation was causally connected to the contraventions concerning the applicant's dismissal." 'Whether compensation should include unpaid salary, annual leave, general damages for distress and interest.' "What pecuniary penalty was appropriate for the second respondent's contraventions." 'Whether the penalty should be ordered to be paid to the applicant under s 546(3)(c) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

It was appropriate to order Mr Wright personally to compensate the applicant because he was the general manager, was personally involved in and instigated the contravening dismissal conduct, the conduct occurred at his direction or with his full knowledge and support, and Goldbreak was in administration. Compensation was confined to losses causally connected with the contraventions: unpaid salary and notice, outstanding annual leave, general damages for distress, and interest. Further compensation for 17 weeks without work was refused because the applicant would have resigned on two weeks notice and the extended unemployment was not shown to result from the contraventions. A single...

Court Disposition

The second respondent was ordered to pay the applicant compensation of $8,191.86 plus interest and a monetary penalty of $20,000 payable to the applicant.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 546 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) the second respondent do forthwith pay to the applicant compensation in the amount of $8,191.86 together with interest at the rate of 5.5% from 16 October 2017 until the date of this order.' 'Pursuant to s 546(3)(c) of the Fair Work Act the second respondent do...