Resources: Blogs

Jailhouse Rock


Court orders jail term for owner-operator who failed to comply with orders resulting from Fair Work action

In June 2015, Judge Jarrett of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia found that a Northern Queensland-based tour company and its owner had underpaid five employees and contravened the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

In June 2015, Judge Jarrett of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia found that a Northern Queensland-based tour company and its owner had underpaid five employees and contravened the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) (Fair Work Ombudsman v Trek North Tours & Anor (No.2) [2015] FCCA 1801).

Prior to commencing the Federal Circuit Court proceedings, the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) conducted an investigation into several complaints it received from employees and issued compliance notices to the company. The company failed to comply with those notices and a Fair Work Inspector reported that the owner said to her,

The compliance notices are rubbish. I have no intention of paying the money. I will have thousands of complaints against me before I do. The Fair Work Act reeks of fascism and I will never pay any of the money.

The company and the owner did not appear and were not represented in the Federal Circuit Court proceedings. As a result, a default judgement was entered against them. Understandably, Judge Jarrett described the company and the owner as “entirely uncooperative.”

The orders made by Judge Jarrett included:

  • The company was fined $55,000;
  • The owner-operator was fined $12,000;
  • The underpaid employees were to be paid their entitlements.

The penalties and back-pay were to be paid within 28 days of the Federal Circuit Court’s order.

In July 2015, Judge Jarrett made further orders freezing the assets of the company and the owner pending compliance with the earlier orders. The freezing orders were the result of an application by the FWO in which it outlined concerns that the owner might attempt to bankrupt the company to avoid paying the penalties or back-pay.

Following the freezing orders, the owner paid the penalty ordered against him personally but failed to pay the penalty against the company or back-pay the employees. The owner then moved money from two frozen company accounts into his family trust account.

This action triggered the FWO to commence contempt proceedings, claiming that the owner had failed to comply with the Federal Circuit Court’s orders.

On 10 May 2018, Judge Vasta of the Federal Court of Australia sentenced the owner to 12 months’ imprisonment for contempt of court for his failure to follow the Federal Circuit Court’s orders.

The owner appealed this outcome and a stay order was issued, granting the owner bail until a further hearing. The terms of the stay order included that the owner must:

  • surrender his passport;
  • not leave Queensland without permission;
  • report to Cairns Police Station each Wednesday and Saturday; and;
  • reside at a known address.

This is the first contempt of court case run by the FWO and has resulted in the imposition of a prison sentence against a business owner.

Clearly, this case demonstrates the seriousness with which employers should take approaches from the FWO, particularly if those approaches involve potential litigation.

The FWO has powers beyond simply issuing compliance notices and, as the FWO, Natalie James has said, it is prepared to use every tool at its disposal – “This includes taking unprecedented new actions available to us across the legal framework such as this one.”


Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Similar articles

FWO secures penalties against bar operator and external accounting firm

Closing time

The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) requires employers to keep certain employee records for a period of 7 years. These records are necessary to ensure that employees have been paid their minimum entitlements should an underpayment claim be made.


Underpaying employer ordered to pay $475,200 in penalties

Pecuniary penalties no longer a matter of degrees

The Federal Court of Australia has issued one of its first penalty decisions since the High Court of Australia’s decision earlier this year of Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson [2022] HCA 13.


Commission finds employer’s suspicion of an employee’s misconduct was not a valid reason for dismissal

Under suspicion

If considering taking disciplinary action due to an employee’s misconduct, it is critical that an employer makes a decision based on wrongdoing as opposed to a mere suspicion of wrongdoing.


Commission confirms inappropriate touching constituted sexual harassment warranting summary dismissal

‘Scuse you

Sexual harassment in the workplace has been the subject of significant reform over the past few years, with an even greater onus on employers now to take proactive measures to minimise or eliminate the risk of sexual harassment in connection with work.


Employers delay sinks bid for injunctive relief

Speak now

When seeking to enforce a restraint, it is important that employers seek to enforce the restraint in a timely manner to prevent future or an ongoing breach. Any delay will be considered by the courts when assessing whether it is reasonable to enforce the restraint.


Two-year post-employment restraint on hairdresser found to be unreasonable

Splitting hairs

When it comes to drafting post-employment restraints in employment contracts, it is important for employers to consider the purpose of the restraint and whether or not the restraint reasonably serves that purpose.


Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in Workplace Relations.

Sign up to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to your inbox.