Security & Technology Services (NT) Pty Ltd v the Respondent
Citation: [2022] FCAFC 90
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
Security & Technology Services (NT) was found liable by a Federal Circuit judge for contravening s.44 of the Fair Work Act by failing to give notice of termination to an employee, the Applicant. The primary judge ordered the company to pay compensation of $308,401.83 with interest, and a pecuniary penalty of $50,000. The judge also ordered costs on an indemnity basis from 6 April 2021. The company appealed on multiple grounds.
What was decided
The Full Court allowed the appeal on the basis of procedural fairness grounds. The court found that the primary judge's conduct of the trial involved excessive and inappropriate interventions, including arbitrary time limits on cross-examination, repeated aggressive questioning of the company's witnesses about case theories not raised by the Respondent, and the judge initiating cross-examination of witnesses. The judge's conduct gave rise to an appearance of bias and constituted an egregious departure from the proper judicial role. The original orders were set aside and the matter was remitted for rehearing before a different judge.
What it means for employers
While employers can be held liable for termination notice breaches, they are entitled to a fair trial where both sides can properly present their cases. Judicial intervention that undermines proper presentation of an employer's defence can invalidate findings even if substantive liability might otherwise exist. Trial management must remain impartial.
What it means for employees
Right to procedural fairness at trial is fundamental. Where judicial conduct is so excessive that it prevents fair hearing, remedies include appeal and retrial rather than proceeding with potentially tainted findings. Employees need fair trials but not judges who actively support one side.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/full/2022/2022fcafc0090Want more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →