Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation v Payne (Qld) Pty Ltd ATF the Indamine Unit Trust trading as Undamine Industries [2023] FCA 1681

Federal Court of Australia

Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation v Payne (Qld) Pty Ltd ATF the Indamine Unit Trust trading as Undamine Industries [2023] FCA 1681 File number: QUD 233 of 2023

Judgment of: LOGAN J

Date of judgment: 9 November 2023

Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – where the applicant, the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation (corporation) instituted proceeding against the respondent for alleged contraventions of s 5(1) and s 10(1) of the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Payroll Levy Collection Act 1992 (Cth) (the Collection Act) – where the corporation alleges the respondent breached s 5(1) of the Collection Act by failing to submit monthly returns within 28 days of the end of each relevant month (monthly return contraventions) and s 10(1) of the Collection Act by failing to submit audit reports within the time required (audit report contraventions) – where the corporation did not press alleged monthly return contraventions – where the respondent admits the audit report contraventions – where, at mediation, the parties reach agreed position on facts, submissions on penalties and related orders – whether the court should exercise judicial discretion to act on the agreed position on penalties and other orders jointly promoted – where the exercise of discretion as to the imposition of penalties is informed by the joint position promoted by the parties Commonwealth v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate (2015) 258 CLR 482 (Agreed Penalties Case) applied – whether a maximum penalty is required to ensure general deterrence Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 875 considered; Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson (2022) 274 CLR 450 applied – where just because a contravention is objectively in the mid-range of objective seriousness does not, for this reason, transpose into a mid-range penalty – where there are factors promoted in joint submissions which satisfy the court that the penalties promoted in those joint submissions are consistent with the purpose of the civil penalty regime – orders made in the terms agreed and promoted by the parties