Federal Court of Australia

Commissioner of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission v Edwards [2026] FCA 1206

ORDERS

THE COURT DECLARES THAT:

1.    By working as an aged care worker on the dates and times and at the facilities recorded in schedule A of these orders, the respondent contravened section 74GD(1) of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Act 2018 (Cth) because he engaged in conduct in breach of a banning order made under s 74GB(1) of that Act that was in force against him, banning him from being involved in the provision of any type of aged care.

2.    Pursuant to rule 5.23(2)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), judgment be entered in favour of the applicant against the respondent.

3.    The applicant serve a copy of these orders on the respondent by express post.

4.    The question of the payment of pecuniary penalties and costs be adjourned for further hearing on 14 December 2026 at 10:15am.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Schedule A

Mr Edwards was subject to a banning order which commenced at 17:00 on 15 April 2024. He was not subject to a banning order for the earlier part of this shift from between 14:30 to 16:59 on 15 April 2024.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered ex tempore, revised from transcript)

BURLEY J:

1    The applicant is the Commissioner of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. The respondent is Gregory Scott Edwards. The Commissioner seeks orders pursuant to r 5.23(2)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (FCR) for default judgment in her favour, a declaration that by working as an aged care worker at various times and in various places Mr Edwards contravened s 74GD of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Act 2018 (Cth), pecuniary penalties pursuant to s 82(3) of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 (Cth) when read with ss 74EA and 74GD of the Commission Act, and costs.

2    The proceedings were commenced by Originating Application accompanied by a Concise Statement, both dated 10 April 2026. The Concise Statement records that from 15 April 2024, Mr Edwards was subject to a banning order under s 74GB(1) of the Commission Act which prohibits him from being involved in the provision of any type of aged care. Despite the banning order, Mr Edwards performed 16 shifts in aged care facilities as a “personal care worker” or an “assistant in nursing” in the period from 15 April 2024 until 8 June 2024. Relief in the form of declarations and pecuniary penalties is sought on the basis that Mr Edwards has contravened relevant sections of the Commission Act. The Concise Statement pleads that Mr Edward’s failure to comply with the banning order increased the risk of harm to vulnerable individuals at the facilities where he worked as an aged care worker, who require protection from harm.

3    While the Commission Act has since been repealed and replaced with the Aged Care Act 2024 (Cth), the banning order issued under s 74GB of the Commission Act remains in force pursuant to cl 45 of sch 2 of the Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2024 (Cth). Banning orders under s 74GD may also be dealt with after the transition time as if they were made under s 498 of the Aged Care Act. By s 7(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), the repeal does not affect the liability created by contravening the banning order or any proceeding or remedy in respect of it, and consequently these proceedings may be continued as if the Commission Act were not repealed.

4    The Commissioner relies on affidavits from: Michael Palfrey of 13 August 2026 and 18 August 2026, Solicitor; Chrisopher Hanlon of 7 August 2026, an employee of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission who occupies the role of Director within the enforcement team in the Compliance and Enforcement Branch of the Commission; Claire Wyartt of 16 July 2026, a Principal Investigator within the Enforcement Team of the Commissioner; and Michael Doxey of 27 April 2026, process server.

5    Mr Edwards did not appear when the matter was called. The Commissioner was represented by Ms van Proctor of counsel, who filed helpful written submissions in advance of the hearing.

6    FCR rr 5.22 and 5.23 provide:

5.22    When a party is in default

A party is in default if the party fails to:

(a)    do an act required to be done, or to do an act in the time required, by these Rules; or

(b)    comply with an order of the Court; or

(c)    attend a hearing in the proceeding; or

(d)    prosecute or defend the proceeding with due diligence.

5.23    Orders on default

(1)    If an applicant is in default, a respondent may apply to the Court for an order that:

(a)    a step in the proceeding be taken within a specified time; or

(b)    the proceeding be stayed or dismissed for the whole or any part of the relief claimed by the applicant:

(i)    immediately; or

(ii)    on conditions specified in the order.

(2)    If a respondent is in default, an applicant may apply to the Court for:

(a)    an order that a step in the proceeding be taken within a specified time; or

(b)    if the claim against the respondent is for a debt or liquidated damages—an order giving judgment against the respondent for:

(i)    the debt or liquidated damages; and

(ii)    if appropriate, interest and costs in a sum fixed by the Court or to be taxed; or

(c)    if the proceeding was started by an originating application supported by a statement of claim or an alternative accompanying document referred to in rule 8.05, or if the Court has ordered that the proceeding continue on pleadings—an order giving judgment against the respondent for the relief claimed in the statement of claim or alternative accompanying document to which the Court is satisfied that the applicant is entitled; or

(d)    an order giving judgment against the respondent for damages to be assessed, or any other order; or

(e)    an order mentioned in paragraph (b), (c) or (d) to take effect if the respondent does not take a step ordered by the Court in the proceeding in the time specified in the order.

Note 1:    The Court may make any order that the Court considers appropriate in the interests of justice—see rule 1.32.

Note 2: An order or judgment under this Division may be set aside or varied.

7    The Originating Application and Concise Statement were served on Mr Edwards personally on 13 April 2026. He has not filed a Notice of Address for Service or any other document and has taken no step in the proceedings and he did not appear at the case management hearings held on 5 June 2026 or 17 July 2026. He has also failed to comply with orders for the filing of a Concise Response by 3 July 2026. Accordingly, he is in default of court orders within FCR r 5.22 (a) to (d).

8    On 17 July 2026, I ordered that the Commissioner serve on Mr Edwards by express post the interlocutory application and any documents and submissions upon which the Commissioner intended to rely in support of his interlocutory application dated 16 July 2026 for default judgment. The affidavit of Mr Palfrey demonstrates compliance with this order.

9    Section 74GD(1) of the Commission Act provides:

74GD    Contraventions of banning orders etc.

(1)    An individual contravenes this subsection if:

(a)    a banning order against the individual is in force; and

(b)    the individual engages in conduct; and

(c)    the conduct breaches the banning order or a condition to which the order is subject.

    Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units.

10    I am satisfied on the basis of the evidence relied upon by the Commissioner that a banning order was in force from 5pm on 15 April 2024. I am also satisfied that the respondent engaged in conduct in breach of the banning order on the 16 occasions listed in the interlocutory application. The employment, rostering, timesheet and check-in and allocation records of the facility where Mr Edwards worked are demonstrated by the evidence in Ms Wyartt’s affidavit. Each shift constituted involvement in the provision of aged care and amounted to a breach of the banning order. Accordingly, on the basis of the evidence adduced, the Commissioner has established that Mr Edwards contravened s 74GD(1) of the Commission act.

11    I am also satisfied that there is a public interest in making the declarations sought. It is apparent that Mr Edwards has elected not to play a role in the litigation or to recognise the fact of the banning order prohibiting him from working as an aged care worker despite him having notice of it. The Court treats such breaches as serious and worthy of approbation. It is necessary and appropriate to make the declaration sought: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Dateline Imports Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] FCA 1222; 320 ALR 535 at [18]–[20] (Rangiah J).

12    The Commissioner also seeks orders for the payment of pecuniary penalties in the amount of $150,000 and costs as assessed in a lump sum amount, with the affidavit of Mr Palfrey assessing those costs in the sum of $85,324.49.

13    The hearing today was listed for case management. Given the non-compliance of Mr Edwards, I indicated that it was appropriate for the question of whether default judgment should be entered to be determined. For the reasons given, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to do so. However, the question of the appropriateness of the quantum of pecuniary penalties cannot be addressed in such short measure. Accordingly, I will make the orders indicated above and adjourn the determination of pecuniary penalties and costs to a convenient time.

Associate:

Dated:    24 August 2026