The penalties went straight to the employee, not a regulator
An Australian employer stopped paying its employee for over a year, carried on expecting him to work, and has been ordered to pay $140,000.
On 23 April 2026, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia handed down its penalty decision in Lambert v Arria NLG (Aus) Pty Ltd (No 2), a case that crystallises what payroll failure looks like when it reaches the courtroom.
Mark Kevin Lambert was employed by Arria NLG (Aus) Pty Ltd, the Australian arm of a multinational technology group, under the Professional Employees Award. Between 1 February 2024 and 28 February 2025, his employer stopped paying his salary entirely. Superannuation contributions had stopped even earlier, from as far back as 4 August 2023.
In June 2024, Lambert wrote directly to the company's chief executive officer. At that point, more than $70,000 in wages was already outstanding, and he gave the company a deadline of 25 June 2024 to fix it. It did not. Partial payments came through in August and October 2024 for wages owed in December 2023 and January 2024 respectively. The amounts owed for subsequent periods were never paid.
The court had previously ordered the company to pay compensation of $135,416.67 in unpaid salary and $17,968.78 in unpaid superannuation. The company did not comply with those orders either, telling the court it was waiting to know the full extent of its liability. It also filed no defence in the proceedings.
Judge Doust found the contraventions were deliberate and carried out at the highest levels of management. At the same time, the CEO of the company's parent entity was emailing staff with expectations of full productivity. In a message to the team dated 5 January 2025, she wrote: "we expect most people will be fully back on deck this coming week at which time we will continue the momentum to conclude our 4-Stage capital program."
No evidence was put before the court to explain the company's conduct, express remorse, or demonstrate any corrective steps.
Lambert had sought to have the contraventions classified as "serious contraventions" under the Fair Work Act 2009, which would have attracted significantly higher penalties. The court declined, finding that the allegation had not been properly raised from the start of proceedings and the company had not had the opportunity to respond to it.
The court also considered whether the company qualified as a small business employer, a classification that determines the maximum penalty ceiling. The applicant argued that overseas employees of related entities should be counted, pushing the total headcount above 15. Had that argument succeeded, and had the company been found not to be a small business employer, the maximum penalty for each lead contravention would have risen from $99,000 to $495,000. The court was not satisfied on the evidence that the New Zealand employees belonged to the relevant related entity, and so the lower cap of $99,000 per contravention applied.
Judge Doust imposed $90,000 for the salary contraventions and $50,000 for the superannuation contraventions, both ordered paid directly to Lambert. The judge was direct: "I am satisfied that the contraventions were engaged in knowingly and deliberately and were carried out at the highest levels of the first respondent's management."
The case is a pointed reminder that courts weigh the duration and deliberateness of non-payment heavily when setting penalties. The complete absence of contrition or corrective action left the company with nothing in mitigation. When penalties go directly to the employee rather than a regulator, the message is hard to miss: wage and superannuation obligations are personal debts owed to the person doing the work.
