Judge brushed aside the argument that a finding of wrongdoing alone was punishment enough
A Melbourne court has personally fined a charity's former chairman and interim chief executive for their roles in a redundancy that masked an unlawful sacking.
Handed down on 19 May 2026, the decision in Shum v Southern Migrant and Refugee Centre Inc (No 4) [2026] FedCFamC2G 853 ordered the Southern Migrant and Refugee Centre to pay $24,300 in penalties. Its former chairman, Brian Oates, and former interim managing director, Travis Heeney, were each ordered to pay $3,780 from their own pockets for their part in the dismissal, under the accessorial liability provisions of the Fair Work Act.
For HR practitioners, the ruling lands as a pointed warning about the perils of dressing up a problem-employee exit as a restructure.
Lai Shum, who represented herself, was terminated on 19 June 2017 after a redundancy process Judge Forbes found had "a distinct air of artificiality" and was "deliberately opaque." In an earlier liability judgment, the court found the centre had taken adverse action against Ms Shum because she had exercised workplace rights, chiefly by making a string of complaints about board conduct and management. The organisation was also found to have breached its obligation to pay her in lieu of notice on the day of dismissal. The payment arrived four days late.
The judge did not mince words about the workplace culture at the time, calling it "thoroughly toxic" and marked by "internecine politicking, undermining and governance chaos." On the evidence, Mr Heeney designed a restructure knowing Ms Shum's exit "was a fait accompli from its conception," while Mr Oates' dim view of her, the court found, had "materially informed" the decision-making.
What makes the judgment especially significant for senior HR leaders is the personal exposure of those at the top. The court could not "meaningfully differentiate" between the two men's culpability, despite their different roles, and brushed aside the argument that a finding of wrongdoing alone was punishment enough for "two men who otherwise have unblemished careers." Mr Heeney offered a limited apology; Mr Oates did not. The court was unmoved, ordering both to pay the same amount.
Ms Shum's compensation claim, however, fell well short of her expectations. She had sought a substantial sum, including $300,000 for hurt and distress alone. The court awarded 13 weeks' wages and superannuation, $35,000 for hurt and distress, and $5 in interest. Judge Forbes traced most of her psychological harm to a workplace injury from March 2017, well before the dismissal, breaking the chain to her broader losses.
The takeaways for HR are not subtle. A restructure built around removing a particular employee, especially one who has been making waves through legitimate complaints, will struggle under judicial scrutiny no matter how tidy the business case looks on paper. Documentation, transparency and clear separation from prior grievances matter. Boards and executives signing off on dismissals carry real personal financial risk. And the small detail of paying notice on time is not a detail at all.
The respondents have applied for leave to appeal the liability finding. That application is still pending.
