Darlaston v Parker (No 2) [2010] FCA 1382

Darlaston v Parker (No 2) [2010] FCA 1382

Penalties were assessed having regard to the seriousness of each contravention, including failure to comply with safety induction, obstruction of work, improper vehicle conduct, and taking into account the totality principle to avoid unjust aggregate penalties, relevance of previous similar conduct, seniority of respondents, individual circumstances and character, and the need for punishment and deterrence. The Court made declarations as to each contravention and imposed pecuniary penalties accordingly, in amounts considered just and appropriate to each respondent and not excessive in total.

Parties
Applicant: Peter Darlaston; First Respondent: Brian Parker; Second Respondent: Rebel Hanlon; Third Respondent: Robert Kera; Fourth Respondent: Thomas Mitchell; Fifth Respondent: Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union; Sixth Respondent: Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (NSW Branch)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Application for Penalties (industrial Law) / Penalty and Declaratory Orders Following Finding of Contraventions
Outcome
Declarations made and penalties imposed on all respondents for contraventions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth); penalties to be paid to the Commonwealth.
Legal Topics
Civil Penalties, Workplace Relations, Occupational Health and Safety, Declaratory Relief, Union Rights of Entry
Industrial Law Civil Penalties Workplace Relations Occupational Health and Safety Declaratory Relief Union Rights of Entry

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 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Darlaston

Applicant

Brian Parker

First Respondent

Rebel Hanlon

Second Respondent

Robert Kera

Third Respondent

Thomas Mitchell

Fourth Respondent

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

Fifth Respondent

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (NSW Branch)

Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Penalties (industrial Law) / Penalty and Declaratory Orders Following Finding of Contraventions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What are the appropriate penalties for contraventions of ss 758(3) and 767(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth)?
  2. 2 Whether conduct should be regarded as a single course of conduct for penalty purposes
  3. 3 Application of the totality principle to penalties

Ratio Decidendi

Penalties were assessed having regard to the seriousness of each contravention, including failure to comply with safety induction, obstruction of work, improper vehicle conduct, and taking into account the totality principle to avoid unjust aggregate penalties, relevance of previous similar conduct, seniority of respondents, individual circumstances and character, and the need for punishment and deterrence. The Court made declarations as to each contravention and imposed pecuniary penalties accordingly, in amounts considered just and appropriate to each respondent and not excessive in total.

Court Disposition

Declarations made and penalties imposed on all respondents for contraventions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth); penalties to be paid to the Commonwealth.

Orders

  • Declarations as to contraventions of ss 758(3) and 767(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) as set out in detail in the orders.
  • First Respondent: $3,000 penalty for contravention of s 758(3) (3 December 2008)