Habitual Underpayment Comes at a Heavy Cost: Court Imposes Nearly $480,000 in Penalties 

| October 19, 2026

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA) has imposed almost $480,000 in penalties on a company director and his two businesses after finding deliberate, repeated and ongoing breaches of workplace laws.  

The Decisions are collectively a stark reminder that employers who fail to address compliance issues, particularly after regulatory intervention, face escalating financial and reputational consequences.  

Background 

In two related proceedings, the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) pursued ANSA Finance Pty Ltd (ANSA), AFSL Group Pty Ltd (AFSL) and their director, Joshua Fuoco (collectively the Respondents), for a range of contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009.  

The matters involved: 

• underpayments,  
• adverse action,  
• payslip breaches, and  
• failures to comply with statutory notices issued during the FWO’s investigations.  

The ANSA prosecution arose from alleged underpayments affecting multiple employees, including failures to pay minimum rates, leave entitlements, public holiday payments, payment in lieu of notice and annual leave loading.  

In its Decision, the FCFCOA also found that an employee was subjected to adverse action after making enquiries about unpaid superannuation and taking annual leave.  

Payslip breaches and failures to comply with a Notice to Produce were also established.  

The AFSL proceeding involved an employee who was not paid at all for work performed. After making enquiries about unpaid wages, the employee’s purported resignation was “accepted” despite her expressly stating she had not resigned. The FCFCOA found this amounted to unlawful adverse action.  

Many of the affected employees were young workers or visa holders, which the FCFCOA regarded as a factor increasing the seriousness of the conduct. 

The Court’s Decisions

Judge Young described the conduct in both cases as deliberate, repeated and demonstrating a disregard for employees’ statutory entitlements and workplace rights.  

In both proceedings, the FCFCOA accepted that the contraventions were not the result of misunderstanding or administrative error, but conscious decisions not to comply with workplace obligations.  

Judge Young was particularly influenced by evidence that: 

• employees remained unpaid more than four years after their employment ended;  
• the respondents failed to participate meaningfully in the proceedings 
• statutory notices issued by the FWO were ignored;   
• prior court orders and penalties had not been complied with; and   
• there was a continuing risk of future contraventions.   

ANSA Finance Pty Ltd

In the ANSA matter, penalties of $233,100 were imposed against the company and $46,620 against Mr Fuoco personally.

The Court found 12 contraventions after applying the statutory course-of-conduct provisions and characterised the conduct as “habitual non-compliance” over an extended period involving multiple employees.

AFSL Group Pty Ltd

In the AFSL matter, penalties of $173,160 were imposed against the company and $26,000 against Mr Fuoco personally.

Judge Young considered the termination of an employee after she enquired about unpaid wages to be an aggravating feature warranting a substantial penalty.

Combined penalties across both proceedings totalled $478,880.

Key Takeaways 

• Repeated underpayments and non-compliance with FWO investigations can significantly increase penalties.  

• Adverse action against employees who raise workplace concerns remains a high-risk area and attracts serious penalties.  

• Failure to provide payslips and comply with statutory notices can be treated as serious standalone contraventions.  

• Previous findings of non-compliance and unpaid penalties may be used to establish a pattern of conduct and justify higher penalties.  

• Directors can be personally liable where they are involved in workplace law breaches.  

What This Means for Employers 

The significance of these decisions extends beyond the underpayments themselves. The Court focused on the broader pattern of conduct, including repeated contraventions, failures to cooperate with the regulator and the absence of meaningful corrective action.

1. Repeated Non-Compliance Can Increase Penalties

Employers who ignore workplace obligations, fail to engage with regulators and continue non-compliant practices after previous enforcement action risk substantially higher penalties.

In these proceedings, previous contraventions, unpaid penalties and the absence of corrective action contributed to the penalties imposed.

2. Employee Complaints Must Be Handled Appropriately

The decisions reinforce that adverse action claims can arise alongside payroll and compliance disputes.

Employees who raise concerns about wages, superannuation or other workplace entitlements are exercising workplace rights protected under the FW Act.

Disciplinary action, dismissal or other detrimental treatment connected to those complaints may expose employers to additional contraventions and penalties.

3. Regulatory Notices Must Be Taken Seriously

The Court treated failures to comply with the FWO’s investigative processes as serious breaches in their own right.

Employers should not assume that failing to respond to statutory notices or requests for information will be treated as a minor procedural issue.

Such failures can constitute separate contraventions attracting substantial penalties.

Personal Accountability 

The Decisions are also a reminder that directors and managers who are knowingly involved in contraventions may be personally liable. The penalties imposed against Mr Fuoco demonstrate that individual accountability remains a key feature of the enforcement litigation outcomes.  

Actions for Employers 

Employers should consider whether their current workplace compliance framework would withstand regulatory scrutiny.

Priority actions to consider include: 

Why Early Intervention Matters

These decisions demonstrate that underpayment cases are rarely just about unpaid wages.

Where breaches are deliberate, repeated, involve vulnerable workers or are accompanied by adverse action and regulatory non-compliance, courts may impose significant penalties on both businesses and individuals.

For employers, early intervention, prompt remediation and a genuine commitment to workplace compliance are considerably less costly than defending a Fair Work Ombudsman prosecution.

How IRiQ Law Can Help

IRiQ Law can assist employers with workplace compliance reviews, payroll audits, award classification assessments, employee underpayment matters and advice on responding to Fair Work Ombudsman investigations.

Our team can also provide guidance on managing employee complaints, reducing adverse action risks and strengthening workplace compliance practices.

If your organisation needs support in managing compliance risks or addressing potential breaches, contact our team for practical advice and guidance.