Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson

[2022] HCA 13
Judgment date
Case number
M34/2021
Before
Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson JJ
Catchwords

Industrial law (Cth) – Pecuniary penalties – Determination of appropriate penalty – Where s 349(1) of Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ("Act") relevantly provided that person must not knowingly or recklessly make false or misleading representation about another person's obligation to engage in industrial activity – Where s 546 of Act empowered Federal Court of Australia to order person to pay pecuniary penalty that court considered "appropriate" in respect of contravention of civil remedy provision – Where first respondent union officer and second respondent union each contravened s 349(1) of Act twice – Where second respondent had longstanding history of contraventions of Act – Whether discretion under s 546 of Act constrained by notion of proportionality drawn from criminal law – Whether statutory maximum penalty for civil remedy provision may be imposed only for worst category of contravening conduct.
Words and phrases – "appropriate penalty", "civil penalty regime", "civil remedy provision", "deterrence", "discretion", "maximum penalty", "pecuniary penalty", "proportionality", "retribution". 
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss 349, 546.
 

Files
13.docx (130.13 KB)
13.pdf (356.37 KB)