Shergill v Singh (No 2) [2024] FCA 261

Shergill v Singh (No 2) [2024] FCA 261

The respondent's nine contraventions were deliberate, egregious and exploitative, involved serious deprivation of minimum employment standards for a vulnerable domestic worker, caused substantial loss, were concealed and difficult to detect, and were accompanied by no cooperation, remorse or rectification. Neither s 557, s 556 nor the totality principle required reduction. The statutory maximum for each contravention was appropriate to achieve specific and general deterrence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Industrial Law Proceeding for Pecuniary Penalties for Contraventions of Civil Remedy Provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth) / Penalty Determination Following Liability Judgment
Outcome
The Court ordered the respondent to pay the statutory maximum pecuniary penalty of $97,200 to the applicant within 60 days.
Legal Topics
['civil Penalties' 'fair Work Act Contraventions' 'underpayment of Wages and Entitlements' 'domestic Worker Employment' 'deterrence' 'diplomatic Household Domestic Servitude']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['civil Penalties' 'fair Work Act Contraventions' 'underpayment of Wages and Entitlements' 'domestic Worker Employment' 'deterrence' 'diplomatic Household Domestic Servitude']

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 Proceeding for Pecuniary Penalties for Contraventions of Civil Remedy Provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth) / Penalty Determination Following Liability Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What pecuniary penalty should be fixed for the respondent's contraventions of ss 323, 536, 44(1) and 45 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)." 'Whether the statutory maximum penalty was appropriate having regard to deterrence, seriousness, deliberateness, exploitation, absence of cooperation or remorse, and totality.' 'Whether the contraventions should be treated as separate contraventions or adjusted by reason of course of conduct, double penalty, or totality principles.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's nine contraventions were deliberate, egregious and exploitative, involved serious deprivation of minimum employment standards for a vulnerable domestic worker, caused substantial loss, were concealed and difficult to detect, and were accompanied by no cooperation, remorse or rectification. Neither s 557, s 556 nor the totality principle required reduction. The statutory maximum for each contravention was appropriate to achieve specific and general deterrence.

Court Disposition

The Court ordered the respondent to pay the statutory maximum pecuniary penalty of $97,200 to the applicant within 60 days.

Orders

  • ['The respondent, Mr Navdeep Suri Singh, pay a pecuniary penalty to the applicant, Ms Shergill, of $97,200 within 60 days.']