Federal Court of Australia

Fair Work Ombudsman v Sadamatsu [2026] FCA 1568

ORDERS

THE COURT DECLARES THAT:

1.    Consequent upon default by the Respondent pursuant to rule 5.22 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), that by reason of the involvement of the Respondent in the contraventions by Miso Pty Ltd (ABN 92 152 545 027) (deregistered) and pursuant to s 550 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), during the period from 29 June 2020 to 18 September 2022, the Respondent contravened the following civil remedy provisions:

(a)    section 45 of the FW Act by failing to pay 66 Employees Saturday penalty rates as prescribed by cl 24.2 of the Restaurant Industry Award 2020;

(b)    section 45 of the FW Act by failing to pay 38 Employees public holiday penalty rates as prescribed by cl 24.2 of the Award;

(c)    section 45 of the FW Act by failing to pay 37 Employees weekday overtime rates (first 2 hours) as prescribed by cll 23.1 and 23.4 of the Award;

(d)    section 45 of the FW Act by failing to pay 18 Employees weekday overtime rates (after 2 hours) as prescribed by cll 23.1 and 23.4 of the Award;

(e)    section 45 of the FW Act by failing to pay 39 Employees Saturday overtime rates (first 2 hours) as prescribed by cll 23.1 and 23.4 of the Award;

(f)    section 45 of the FW Act by failing to pay 31 Employees Saturday overtime rates (after 2 hours) as prescribed by cll 23.1 and 23.4 of the Award;

(g)    section 45 of the FW Act by failing to pay 66 Employees a split shift allowance as prescribed by cl 21.3 of the Award;

(h)    section 44 of the FW Act by failing to pay 57 Employees annual leave loading (as prescribed by cl 25.3 of the Award) and accrued annual leave on termination, as required by s 90(2) of the FW Act;

(i)    section 535(1) of the FW Act by failing to make and keep records of penalty rate entitlements in relation to the Employees, as required by reg 3.33(3)(d) of the Fair Work Regulations 2009;

(j)    section 535(1) of the FW Act by failing to make and keep records of overtime hours worked by the Employees, or when the Employees started and ceased working overtime hours, as required by reg 3.34 of the FW Regulations;

(k)    section 535(1) of the FW Act by failing to make and keep records of annual leave taken by the Employees, and the balance of their entitlement to that leave, as required by reg 3.36 of the FW Regulations; and

2.    Declarations that each of the contraventions set out at declarations 1(a) to 1(k) above were serious contraventions within the meaning of ss 557A(1) and 557A(5A) of the FW Act.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    Pursuant to s 545(1) of the FW Act, the Respondent is to pay the Applicant compensation for loss suffered because of his contraventions of the FW Act declared in declaration 1 above, in the amount of $162,514.28, less any amounts already paid, within 28 days of the date of this order.

2.    Pursuant to s 547(2) of the FW Act, the Respondent pay to the Applicant interest at the applicable pre-judgment interest rate on the amount in order 1 above up to the date of judgment at the applicable pre-judgment interest rate, as set by the Federal Court of Australia, within 28 days of the date of this order.

3.    Pursuant to s 545(1) of the FW Act, within 90 days of receiving the amounts in orders 1 and 2 above, or any part of those amounts, the Applicant is to seek to locate and pay:

(a)    if the Applicant receives those amounts in full – each amount set out in Column B below to the corresponding Employee named in column A, plus interest on that amount at the applicable pre-judgment interest rate; or

(b)    if the Applicant receives part of those amounts – the amount received multiplied by the percentage amount set out in Column C below for each Employee named in Column A:

4.    Pursuant to s 545(1) of the FW Act, if the Applicant is unable to locate and pay any Employee specified in order 3 above within the time specified in that order, the Applicant is to pay to a person the amount specified in order 3 above for that Employee if:

(a)    the person makes a claim for the amount in accordance with s 559(3) of the FW Act; and

(b)    the Applicant is satisfied that the person is entitled to the amount.

5.    The matter be listed for a case management hearing on 19 February 2027 at 9:30am to set a timetable for the filing of evidence and submissions in respect of the determination of pecuniary penalties.

6.    By 5.00 pm on 21 October 2026, the Applicant serve by email a copy of these orders, the declarations and the reasons for judgment at the email address identified in order 1 of the orders made by the Court on 18 June 2026.

7.    By 5.00 pm on 30 October 2026, the Applicant personally serve a copy of these orders, the declarations and the reasons for judgment on the Respondent at the Respondent’s last known residential address, identified in order 2 of the orders made by the Court on 18 June 2026.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

RAPER J:

1    In these proceedings the applicant, the Fair Work Ombudsman, alleges that the Respondent, Mr Katsuyoshi Sadamatsu, was involved in and is therefore accessorily liable for a number of contraventions of ss 44, 45 and 535(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and the Restaurant Industry Award 2020 committed by Miso Pty Ltd, a (now deregistered) Company, of which he is the sole director. It is alleged that between 29 June 2020 and 18 September 2022 the Company failed to pay Saturday and public holiday penalty rates, overtime rates, split-shift allowances and accrued annual leave on termination to employees resulting in total underpayments of $162,514.28. The FWO further alleges that the Company failed to make and keep required employment records relating to penalty rates, overtime and leave entitlements and that those contraventions were serious contraventions, pursuant to s 557A(1) of the FW Act, because they were knowingly committed as part of a systematic pattern of conduct. It is further alleged that Mr Sadamatsu, with knowledge of the relevant obligations, made, supported or failed to rectify the decisions giving rise to those contraventions and is therefore accessorily liable for them under s 550 of the FW Act and liable for the corresponding serious contraventions. The FWO seeks a number of declarations and orders for compensation.

2    Following Mr Sadamatsu’s failure to attend Court, to file a defence and otherwise comply with Court orders, the FWO seeks default judgment against Mr Sadamatsu pursuant to r 5.23(2)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

3    For the reasons that follow, the FWO’s application for default judgment is granted.

Background

4    The FWO filed an originating application and statement of claim on 22 January 2026. These documents were personally served on Mr Sadamatsu on 3 February 2026.

5    On 12 February 2026, the Court informed the parties that the matter was listed for first case management hearing on 19 February 2026.

6    On 18 February 2026, the FWO provided to the Court proposed orders seeking that Mr Sadamatsu file a notice of address for service and a defence, that the FWO file any reply and that the matter be listed for case management hearing in April 2026. On the same day, the Court received an email from Mr Sadamatsu seeking an adjournment of the case management hearing listed on 19 February 2026 until a date after 6 March 2026. In that email, Mr Sadamatsu explained that he was undergoing regular dialysis treatment.

7    The FWO did not oppose the adjournment of the case management hearing and it was vacated and re-listed on 12 March 2026.

8    On 19 February 2026, the Court received a further email from Mr Sadamatsu regarding the provision of a medical certificate, which he foreshadowed providing (but never provided).

9    On 11 March 2026, the parties provided proposed consent orders seeking that the case management hearing on 12 March 2026 be adjourned, that Mr Sadamatsu file and serve a defence by 24 April 2026 and that the FWO file and serve any reply by 1 May 2026. On the same day, the Court made those orders and re-listed the matter for case management on 6 May 2026. Also on 11 March 2026, Mr Sadamatsu filed a Notice of Address for Service which listed IT Lawyers as his legal representatives.

10    Mr Sadamatsu did not file a defence in accordance with the 11 March 2026 orders.

11    On 5 May 2026, both parties provided short minutes of proposed order in advance of the forthcoming case management hearing.

12    Also on 5 May 2026, Mr Sadamatsu filed the affidavit of Mr Kevin Sun, his solicitor. Mr Sun deposed that he had been retained to act for Mr Sadamatsu in March 2026 and that, despite obtaining some instructions and preparing a draft defence, he had been unable to finalise the defence because Mr Sadamatsu’s instructions remained incomplete. He attributed those difficulties to Mr Sadamatsu’s end-stage kidney disease requiring regular haemodialysis. Mr Sun deposed to seeking a medical opinion from Mr Sadamatsu’s treating nephrologist regarding his capacity to provide instructions, but no response had been received.

13    On 6 May 2026, a case management hearing was conducted where Mr Sun sought an extension of time to file a defence in light of Mr Sadamatsu’s circumstances. I made orders extending the time for Mr Sadamatsu to file and serve a defence by 29 May 2026, for the FWO to file and serve a reply by 5 June 2026 and listing the matter for further case management on 18 June 2026.

14    On 27 May 2026, Mr Sadamatsu’s solicitors, IT Lawyers, filed a Notice of Intention to Cease to Act.

15    Mr Sadamatsu did not file a defence in accordance with the 6 May 2026 orders.

16    On 16 June 2026, the Court contacted the parties, including Mr Sadamatsu’s former solicitors, seeking either a means of contacting Mr Sadamatsu directly or that this email be forwarded to him.

17    By email dated 17 June 2026, Mr Sadamatsu’s former solicitors advised that they were unable to provide Mr Sadamatsu’s contact details, referring to their obligations under r 9 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015 (NSW). The FWO thereafter provided Mr Sadamatsu’s last known email address and confirmed that it had been attempting to contact him by telephone and email in relation to the forthcoming case management hearing.

18    On 18 June 2026, a case management hearing was held. Mr Sadamatsu failed to attend. At the hearing, the FWO confirmed that they had made repeated attempts to contact Mr Sadamatsu by telephone and email using his last known contact details and that these attempts had been made since approximately 29 May 2026 and continued over several weeks, but no response had been received. I was satisfied that the case management hearing could proceed in Mr Sadamatsu’s absence and made orders that:

(1)    the FWO serve, personally and by email, Mr Sadamatsu with a copy of these orders;

(2)    Mr Sadamatsu file and serve a notice of address for service by 26 June 2026;

(3)    extended the time for Mr Sadamatsu to file and serve a defence by 7 July 2026;

(4)    if Mr Sadamatsu filed and served a notice of address for service and a defence, the FWO was to file any reply by 14 July 2026 and the matter be listed for further case management not before 20 July 2026; or

(5)    if Mr Sadamatsu failed to file and serve a notice of address for service and a defence, for evidence and submissions to be filed by both parties in respect of default judgment as to liability and that the matter be listed for hearing as to default judgment on the relief claimed by the FWO.

19    Mr Sadamatsu did not file a notice of address for service or a defence in accordance with the 18 June 2026 orders.

20    On 16 July 2026, the FWO filed the affidavit of Ms Talysha Sabatino, a licensed process server who deposed that, on 23 June 2026 she personally served the 18 June 2026 orders on Mr Sadamatsu. On this day the FWO also filed the affidavit of Ms Carlota Sanchez Jiminez and submissions in support of an application for default judgment.

21    On 14 August 2026, the Court sent an email to the parties stating the following:

The Court notes that the respondent has not complied with orders 3, 4 and 6(b) of the orders made on 18 June 2026 (attached).

Those orders required that the respondent:

•    file and serve a notice of address for service by 26 June 2026;

•    file and serve a defence by 7 July 2026; and

•    file and serve affidavit evidence and submissions in respect of default judgment as to liability (and not penalty) claimed by the Applicant by 13 August 2026.

As no evidence has been received, the Court presently assumes that the respondent does not intend to file any evidence. As previously indicated by the applicant in the letter served on respondent on 23 June 2026, if no evidence is filed, the applicant intends to seek summary judgment in its favour on the basis that the respondent has failed to:

•    comply with an order of the Court;

•    attend a hearing in the proceeding; or

•    prosecute or defend the proceeding with due diligence.

If the respondent does intend to file evidence, the respondent is required to notify the Court and file and serve that evidence by 28 August 2026.

If nothing is received by 28 August 2026, the Court will assume that the respondent does not intend to file anything in response to the applicant’s application for summary judgment and will hear the application at 10:15am on 19 October 2026.

If the respondent does not attend that hearing the Court may hear the application in determine it in their absence.

22    On 12 October 2026, the Court emailed the parties seeking an update from the FWO as to whether they had received any recent correspondence from Mr Sadamatsu and for an update regarding the status of his health. On 13 October 2026, the Court received the below response from Mr Sadamatsu:

Thank you for your email. I am writing to provide an update on my health and respectfully request an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for 19 October 2026 at 10:15 am.

I continue to attend treatment for my kidney condition every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday from 2:00 pm to 8:00 pm. Since my company went into insolvency in May this year, my blood pressure has remained very high. Last Friday, I had to spend the entire day in the hospital emergency department.

Given my current health, I respectfully ask whether the hearing could be adjourned until late November.

If possible, my preferred dates are 24 or 26 November 2026. I am available at any time on either date, at the Court’s convenience.

I apologise for any inconvenience and would be grateful for the Court’s consideration of my request.

23    The Court then sought the FWO’s position on Mr Sadamatsu’s response and his request that the interlocutory hearing be adjourned. On 13 October 2026, the FWO advised that this was the first contact it had received from Mr Sadamatsu since 27 May 2026 and that it opposed the adjournment. On 14 October 2026, the Court responded to the parties by email in the following terms:

The Court notes receipt of the email from Mr Sadamatsu on 13 October 2026 and the response of the FWO received on 13 October 2026. In light of the above, any application made by Mr Sadamatsu will need to be made at the hearing on 19 October 2026. The parties should not assume that the application will be granted and be otherwise ready to proceed on that day.

Further, if either party does not attend the hearing on 19 October 2026, the parties need to be aware that the proceedings may be conducted in their absence and the matter determined substantively (that is, final orders may be made).

The Court asks that the FWO separately correspond with Mr Sadamatsu as to the basis for their opposition to any application, that is, by identifying the relevant principles applicable for such applications and why they oppose an adjournment.

24    On 14 October 2026, the FWO filed the affidavit of Ms Carlota Sanchez Jiminez, a lawyer employed by the FWO, that detailed the numerous attempts made by the FWO between July and October 2026 to contact Mr Sadamatsu and provide him with the default judgment materials, including by email, post, telephone and attempted personal service. She deposed that, as at 12 October 2026, neither Mr Sadamatsu nor any legal representative acting for him had contacted the FWO since his former solicitors ceased acting on 27 May 2026.

25    At the hearing, the FWO handed up two pieces of correspondence between Mr Sadamatsu and the FWO. On 15 October 2026, the FWO had written to Mr Sadamatsu attaching a letter outlining the principles the Court would be likely to consider in relation to an adjournment application and the basis on which the FWO would oppose such an application. On 16 October 2026 Mr Sadamatsu replied to the FWO with the following:

I am writing further to yesterday’s email correspondence to reiterate my request for an adjournment of the hearing on medical grounds.

I am currently receiving ongoing kidney treatment at hospital, and each treatment session requires the removal of five litres of blood. As previously requested, I would be grateful if the hearing could be adjourned until November.

If an adjournment until November is not possible, could you please consider rescheduling the hearing to a Tuesday or Thursday, when I do not attend hospital for treatment?

I would also like to request a Japanese interpreter for my next court appearance. If the hearing on 19 October proceeds as scheduled, I would also need an interpreter for that hearing.

Without an interpreter, I am unable to explain my circumstances adequately in English. Could you please assist with arranging a Japanese interpreter, or advise whom I should contact at the Court to make the necessary arrangements?

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to your response.

26    Later on 16 October 2026, the FWO replied to Mr Sadamatsu with the following:

Adjournment of hearing

The FWO maintains the position set out in our letter to you yesterday in relation to any adjournment application you may wish to make to the Court, including the need to provide evidence in an appropriate form as to the basis of the adjournment.

While that is the position of the FWO at this time, it is for the Court to consider any adjournment application you may wish to make for the hearing of the FWO’s application seeking default judgment. As confirmed in the Court’s email on 14 October, and reiterated in our letter to you yesterday, any adjournment application by you will need to be made at the hearing on 19 October.  

The Court has confirmed by email that the hearing on 19 October will occur. If you do not attend this hearing, the Court has indicated orders may be made in your absence, including final orders in relation to the FWO’s application for default judgment.

Request for interpreter

The FWO cannot organise an interpreter on your behalf, however, you can request an interpreter for this hearing, and any future court appearances, through the Federal Court Registry. Please refer to the Federal Court website for further information on how to request an interpreter, and the Court’s process for working with interpreters:

If you need an interpreter

Working with interpreters Practice Note (GPN-INTERP)

Litigants in person Practice Note (GPN-LIP)

Any request for an interpreter for the hearing on Monday should be made as soon as possible

Contact details and other matters

We otherwise request that you:

•    respond to our email dated 13 October 2026 requesting your current residential address and phone number;

•    confirm your position in this matter, including whether you intend to take steps to defend the proceedings by filing a Notice of Address for Service and Defence.

27    Mr Sadamatsu failed to appear at the interlocutory hearing on 19 October 2026.

28    Mr Sadamatsu made no formal application to adjourn the hearing, nor filed any evidence explaining the basis upon which the adjournment was sought. Mr Sadamatsu had been put on notice that the matter may be determined in his absence. Mr Sadamatsu has for a long time not participated in the proceedings, responded to correspondence and has breached the Court’s orders. A litigant is not able to participate in proceedings by email. Mr Sadamatsu has put nothing before the Court (in affidavit form, an email does not suffice) to explain his default, nor to explain his absence or the basis (and utility of) granting an adjournment. There is a real prejudice to the public at large by adjournment of proceedings. The public interest demands the prompt disposition of matters. Consequently, I was not prepared to grant an adjournment and the interlocutory hearing proceeded on 19 October 2026.

Relevant provisions

29    Rules 5.22 and 5.23 of the Rules 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.

30    Sections 37P(5) and (6) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) provide:

37P Power of the Court to give directions about practice and procedure in a civil proceeding

…

(5)    If a party fails to comply with a direction given by the Court or a Judge under subsection (2), the Court or Judge may make such order or direction as the Court or Judge thinks appropriate.

(6)    In particular, the Court or Judge may do any of the following:

(a)    dismiss the proceeding in whole or in part;

(b)    strike out, amend or limit any part of a party’s claim or defence;

(c)    disallow or reject any evidence;

(d)    award costs against a party;

(e)    order that costs awarded against a party are to be assessed on an indemnity basis or otherwise.

…

31    There are two preconditions to be satisfied before the Court’s power, giving judgment against the respondent for the relief claimed in the statement of claim (under r 5.23(2)(c)), is enlivened: First, that the respondent has defaulted (within the meaning of r 5.22) and, secondly, that the applicant is entitled to the relief sought in the statement of claim: CNIP Pty Ltd v Chan & Naylor Norwest Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 1170 at [14]-[16]. The discretion is to be exercised with caution: Speedo Holdings BV v Evans (No 2) [2011] FCA 1227 at [20]-[21]. It is unnecessary to prove, by way of evidence, each element of the alleged wrong. The allegations of fact in the statement of claim are deemed to have been admitted by a respondent: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) v Dataline.net.au Pty Ltd [2007] FCAFC 146; 161 FCR 513 at [42] (Moore, Dowsett and Greenwood JJ). Rather it is sufficient if the Court is satisfied, on the basis of the pleadings, that the relief is of the kind to which the applicant is entitled.

Mr Sadamatsu defaulted within the meaning of the Rules

32    I advert to the procedural chronology above. I am satisfied that the evidence established that Mr Sadamatsu has defaulted, within the meaning of r 5.22, in the following respects: First, Mr Sadamatsu failed to attend the case management hearing on 18 June 2026 and also the hearing on 19 October 2026, despite being notified by the FWO and the Court to attend: r 5.22(c). Secondly, Mr Sadamatsu did not comply with the Court orders dated 18 June 2026 which required him to file a notice of address for service by 26 June 2026 and defence by 7 July 2026, despite being notified of these orders, including by way of personal service on 23 June 2026: r 5.22(b). Thirdly, by Mr Sadamatsu failing to comply with Court orders, attend hearings, or communicate with the FWO regarding the progress of these proceedings, he has failed to defend the proceedings with due diligence: r 5.22(d).

The Court is satisfied that the FWO is entitled to the majority of relief sought

33    I have inspected closely the FWO’s originating application and statement of claim, together with the applicable award and the relevant provisions of the FW Act.

34    The pleadings disclose the subject matter of the dispute: Mr Sadamatsu was the sole director and secretary of the Company. The Company operated a restaurant in Haymarket, Sydney. Mr Sadamatsu managed all the employees of that Company. During the assessment period (29 June 2020 to 18 September 2022), the Company employed each of the employees whose workplace entitlements are the subject of the proceedings. The FWO claims that the Company’s business was covered by the Award. It is claimed that the Company effectively ignored numerous loading, overtime and penalty provisions under the Award (and otherwise stipulated under the FW Act) and systematically paid employees a flat rate of pay. The FWO claims variously that the Company breached s 44 (the National Employment Standards under the FW Act), s 45 (the Award provisions) and s 535(1) or s 535(2) (the employer record keeping provisions of the FW Act).

35    The statement of claim pleads that the Company contravened s 45 of the FW Act by failing to pay employees Saturday and public holiday penalty rates, weekday and Saturday overtime rates, and a split shift allowance under the Award. The pleading identifies the relevant part of the Award and the material facts (including as set out in detailed schedules) giving rise to each of the contraventions. I am satisfied that the deemed admissions entitle the FWO to the relief claimed.

36    In addition, the statement of claim pleads that the Company contravened s 44 of the FW Act by failing to pay 57 employees, on termination, accrued annual leave under s 90(2) of the FW Act, and annual leave loading otherwise payable under cl 25.3 of the Award. Again, each of these matters is pleaded in detail, disclosing the material facts and identifying the basis (in fact and law) upon which the entitlement is claimed.

37    The FWO pleads that the Company contravened s 535(1) of the FW Act by failing to make and keep employee records as prescribed by regs 3.33(3)(d), 3.34 or 3.36(1) of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) or alternatively s 535(2) of the FW Act. I am satisfied that the pleading discloses that the FWO would be entitled to relief under s 535(1) of the FW Act.

38    As referred to above, the FWO claimed that aspects of the contravening conduct were “serious contraventions” within the meaning of s 557A of the FW Act (as it was during the assessment period). There were two preconditions to this contravention: The person (here the Company) knowingly contravening the provision and the person’s conduct constituting the contravention was part of a systematic pattern of conduct relating to one or more persons: Fair Work Ombudsman v Blue Sky Kids Land Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 3) [2024] FCA 785 at [756]-[769]; Pacific National Pty Ltd v Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union [2026] FCAFC 135 at [237]-[238]. The pleading discloses the bases for why each element is satisfied and it ought to be entitled to the corresponding relief. The FWO also claimed that Mr Sadamatsu was accessorily liable for the Company’s conduct, by operation of s 550 of the FW Act, that is because he was “involved in” the contraventions, he is taken to have contravened those sections. Again, the pleading sets out in some detail the basis for this claim. Lastly, the FWO claimed, to similar effect, that by operation of s 557A(5A) of the FW Act, Mr Sadamatsu has committed the Company’s serious contraventions. I am satisfied as to the basis for the relief claimed.

39    The Court has a broad discretion to make declarations under s 21 of the FCA Act. There is a clear public interest in the Court making the declarations sought: Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2017] FCAFC 113; 254 FCR 68 at [93] (Dowsett, Greenwood and Wigney JJ). There can be no dispute that the Court has jurisdiction to make the orders for compensation and interest sought against a person who was “involved in” a contravention pursuant to ss 550 and 557A(5A). I have identified minor discrepancies between the amounts particularised in the originating application and the statement of claim, amounting to about $1.00. However, it is my view they result of differences in rounding the amounts owed and therefore for the reasons already given, I am satisfied that the applicant is entitled to the amounts claimed.

Conclusion

40    For these reasons I will make orders that judgment be given for the applicant in its claim against the respondent, pursuant to r 5.23(2)(c) of the Rules. I will otherwise make the appropriate declarations, orders for compensation and interest, and associated facilitative orders.

41    The matter be listed for a further case management hearing with respect to the timetabling of the penalty hearing at 9:30am on 19 February 2027.

Associate:

Dated:    21 October 2026