In Haider v 24/7 Baby 003 Pty Ltd (No 2)[2026] FedCFamC2G 497, the Court imposed significant financial penalties on both a corporate employer and its director following multiple wage underpayments and compliance breaches.
Background
The case followed an earlier default judgment, in which the Court found that:
- the employer had underpaid an employee in breach of the General Retail Industry Award 2020, including failures to pay:
- minimum hourly rates,
- overtime, and
- penalty rates;
- no payslips were ever provided; and
- the employee was never given a Fair Work Information Statement.
The employee was an international student working in a low‑paid role.
Contraventions
In determining penalties, McCabe J applied section 557 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act), aggregating multiple repeated contraventions into grouped breaches. This resulted in:
- Six contraventions attributed to the company, and
- Six contraventions attributed to the director personally.
The maximum potential penalties were substantial:
- The Company:
- Five contraventions with a maximum of $93,900 each, and
- One contravention with a maximum of $82,500,
- Total possible maximum: $552,000.
- The Director:
- Five contraventions with a maximum of $18,780 each, and
- One contravention with a maximum of $16,500,
- Total possible maximum: $110,400.
Court’s Criticism of Employer Conduct
McCabe J characterised the breaches as “troubling”, particularly the wage underpayments, including entitlements, which appeared deliberate rather than inadvertent.
Of particular concern to the Court was:
- the director’s dismissive responses to employee requests for payment, described as reflecting a “cavalier attitude”;
- the employee’s vulnerability as an international student, making them less likely to understand or enforce their workplace rights; and
- the complete failure to provide payslips and the Fair Work Information Statement, which the Court said demonstrated a “lax approach” to compliance and made it harder for employees to identify and pursue underpayments.
McCabe J emphasised that these obligations are fundamental to the effective operation of the Act and must be taken seriously.
Failure to Engage and Use of Corporate Structure
The respondents did not engage meaningfully in the proceedings. The Court noted:
- the absence of evidence about the company’s financial position;
- uncertainty as to whether any penalties would ultimately be paid; and
- a real possibility that the company structure was being used to frustrate enforcement of workplace laws.
This pointed, in the Court’s view, to the need for strong penalties to deter employers who might otherwise seek to avoid liability through insolvent or “shelf” companies.
Penalties Imposed
Taking these factors into account, the Court concluded that penalties at the upper end of the available range were required to achieve both specific and general deterrence.
The final penalties ordered were:
- $407,108 against the Company and
- $91,800 against the director, Mr Kassar, personally.
Key Takeaways for Employers
This decision reinforces that:
- Wage underpayments, particularly where deliberate, will attract a vigorous regulatory response;
- Failure to provide payslips and the Fair Work Information Statement is not a technical breach and can significantly increase penalty exposure;
- Directors can be held personally liable for involvement in contraventions;
- Non‑engagement with Court proceedings is likely to be viewed unfavourably and may increase penalties; and
- Corporate structures will not shield businesses or individuals where the Court considers they are being used to avoid the Act’s obligations.
Get in touch to discuss your options with our team.