Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Fair Work Ombudsman v Wongtas Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 30 Citation: Fair Work Ombudsman v Wongtas Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 30
Parties: FAIR WORK OMBUDSMAN v WONGTAS PTY LTD, DING GUO WANG and XIAO YU ZHANG
File number: NSD 793 of 2010
Judge: COWDROY J
Date of judgment: 2 February 2012
Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – directors of company admitting breaches of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – Court determination of penalty to be imposed – Court's broad discretion to determine quantum of penalty to be imposed – relevant factors of mitigation – whether penalty is proportionate to the offence – whether the respondents displayed remorse or contrition
Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 500(2) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 4AA Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 21A(3)(k) Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 12, 340(1), 340(2), 341(1), 351(1), 545(2)(b), 546(1), 793(1) Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) sub-regulation 3.42(1)
Cases cited: Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (No 2) (2010) 199 IR 373 Australian Ophthalmic Supplies Pty Ltd v McAlary-Smith (2008) 165 FCR 560 Fair Work Ombudsman v Wongtas Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 633 Hoare v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 348 John Holland Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia (No 2) [2010] FCA 110 Kelly v Fitzpatrick [2007] FCA 1080 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 Mason v Harrington Corporation Pty Ltd [2007] FMCA 7 McDonald v Australian Building and Construction Commissioner [2011] FCAFC 29 McIver v Healey [2008] FCA 425 Mill v The Queen (1998) 166 CLR 59 Mornington Inn Pty Ltd v Jordan (2008) 168 FCR 383 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSW 383 Siganto v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 656 Stuart-Mahoney v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2008] FCA 1426 Tyler v Regina; Regina v Chalmers [2007] NSWCCA 247 Veen v The Queen (1979) 143 CLR 458 Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531 Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate