From unpaid super to missing Fair Work statements, the lapses add up fast
A freight company, two dismissals, and a consultant who said he bore no liability: a court ruled otherwise on basic employment entitlements.
On 13 March 2026, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia entered default judgments against the director and a self-described consultant of a freight company, finding both personally involved in the company's failure to meet fundamental obligations under the Fair Work Act 2009.
The case began with the dismissals of Michael Law and his son Lachlan, both long-distance truck drivers, from Fenix Freighters Pty Ltd on 5 May 2024. The Laws claimed their employer had failed to pay accrued annual leave on termination, had not made required superannuation contributions, had not paid one week's wages in lieu of notice, and had never provided them with a Fair Work Information Statement at any point during their employment.
Fenix was subsequently placed into external administration and proceedings against the company were stayed. With the company in liquidation, the applicants pursued two individuals: Jordan Dal Broi, the sole director, secretary and shareholder of Fenix, and Andrew Dal Broi, Jordan's father, who worked in the business as a consultant.
Andrew argued he bore no responsibility, writing to the court and the applicants' lawyers: "I am not a director/owner of Fenix Freighters, I was simply a consultant to the company." Under the Fair Work Act, a formal title is not a prerequisite for personal liability, and the court found both Jordan and Andrew had been involved in Fenix's contraventions.
At the hearing in February 2026, Jordan raised the possibility the applicants had engaged in misconduct and that it was the real reason for their dismissals. Judge McCabe observed this was difficult to reconcile with the actual letters of dismissal the applicants had received, and Jordan himself conceded the letters could have been drafted differently.
At the same hearing, Andrew acknowledged the applicants were owed money but said the company could not pay. He disclosed he was a recently discharged bankrupt with no assets and said Jordan had no assets to satisfy any judgment either. On superannuation, Andrew told the court there had been engagement with the Australian Taxation Office, suggesting the remaining amount owed after the superannuation guarantee charge was imposed was likely to be very small.
A separate allegation that the applicants had damaged company property formed the basis of a counterclaim filed by Fenix, which technically remains on foot. The company's liquidators have informally indicated it is unlikely to be pursued.
The court's orders on 13 March 2026 declared Fenix had contravened ss 44 and 45 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), citing specific failures including "failures to provide each applicant with a fair work information statement at any time during the applicants' respective employment." Both Jordan and Andrew Dal Broi were declared persons involved in those contraventions. Compensation, pecuniary penalties and interest have been reserved for a further hearing, with the Laws asking that pecuniary penalties be directed to the Transport Workers Union.
The 13 March 2026 decision is a pointed reminder that entitlements on termination, including annual leave, superannuation and notice, are not optional. So too is the obligation to issue a Fair Work Information Statement during employment.
The case also highlights the importance of accurate termination documentation. Where a dismissal is disputed, the reasons recorded in writing carry significant weight.
For HR practitioners and business advisers, the decision carries a direct message: involvement in employment law breaches can attract personal liability, regardless of formal title.
What pecuniary penalties and compensation will ultimately be ordered remains to be determined.
