Standen v Feehan (No 2) [2008] FCA 1574

Standen v Feehan (No 2) [2008] FCA 1574

The respondent intentionally hindered or obstructed persons on the site, and the contravention was premeditated, deliberately provocative and serious, continued for a relatively long period, and caused Mr Zito and his employees to work late into the evening. Having regard to the maximum penalty of $2,000, the agreed range, deterrence as the principal purpose, punishment to a lesser extent, the respondent's personal circumstances, absence of previous civil penalty orders, and the possible but unproven consequences for his permit and employment, a civil penalty of $1,300 was appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Industrial Law Civil Penalty Proceeding / Penalty Following Declaration of Contravention of S 285 E(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)
Outcome
Civil penalty imposed on the respondent.
Legal Topics
['civil Penalties' 'right of Entry Permits' 'intentional Hindrance or Obstruction' 'workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)']
['industrial Law'] ['civil Penalties' 'right of Entry Permits' 'intentional Hindrance or Obstruction' 'workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)']

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 Civil Penalty Proceeding / Penalty Following Declaration of Contravention of S 285 E(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What civil penalty should be imposed for the respondent's contravention of s 285E(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth)." 'Whether the agreed penalty range of $1,200 to $1,600 was appropriate in the circumstances.' "What weight should be given to deterrence, punishment, personal circumstances, seriousness of the conduct and possible consequences for the respondent's permit."]

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent intentionally hindered or obstructed persons on the site, and the contravention was premeditated, deliberately provocative and serious, continued for a relatively long period, and caused Mr Zito and his employees to work late into the evening. Having regard to the maximum penalty of $2,000, the agreed range, deterrence as the principal purpose, punishment to a lesser extent, the respondent's personal circumstances, absence of previous civil penalty orders, and the possible but unproven consequences for his permit and employment, a civil penalty of $1,300 was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Civil penalty imposed on the respondent.

Orders

  • ['The respondent pay the sum of $1,300 by way of civil penalty to the Consolidated Revenue Fund within three months.']