In proceedings before the Tribunal reviewing an Improvement Notice under s51A OSH Act, there is no onus on the recipient of the notice to establish that it should not have been issued and should be revoked.

Certainty of terms is a condition of the valid exercise of the power to issue an improvement notice or prohibition notice under the OSH Act; the recipient must be clearly and unambiguously told what they must do to comply, particularly as non-compliance carries criminal penalties.

Directions issued by an Inspector under s50 of the OSH Act, once included in an improvement notice, are subject to the same requirement of clarity and certainty as the rest of the notice; directions constitute enforceable obligations and a failure to comply is a criminal offence.

Financial difficulty or incapacity to pay does not constitute a reasonable excuse for failure to comply with a compliance notice under s84T of the IR Act, consistent with federal jurisprudence under s716 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

A reasonable excuse must be objectively regarded as reasonable by a reasonable person in all relevant circumstances; the burden of proof rests on the person asserting the excuse.

An employer's failure to comply with a compliance notice undermines the utility and effectiveness of the compliance notice regime as a mechanism for enforcing minimum employment standards and must not occur without consequence.

A referral to the Tribunal may validly embrace more than one improvement notice under s51A of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 where the notices relate to a connected factual matrix or common decision.

Compliance notices under IR Act s84Q-84V are an important enforcement tool providing an alternative to taking enforcement proceedings, and are designed to incentivise compliance by deferring potential penalties and adverse findings if complied with.

Two qualified pathways to lawful non-compliance with a compliance notice exist: establishing a reasonable excuse under s84T(3) or application to and determination by the Court for review under s84U(1); absent either pathway, failure to comply constitutes a contravention.

Financial incapacity to comply with a compliance notice does not constitute a reasonable excuse for non-compliance absent a finding under s84U(1) or s84T(3), and the court must impose penalties sufficient for general deterrence to protect the integrity of the compliance notice regime.

Compliance notices under the IR Act are an important enforcement tool providing an alternative to court proceedings, and Parliament has incentivised compliance with them by providing that a person is not taken to admit or be found to have contravened an entitlement provision if the notice is complied with; accordingly general deterrence is a primary consideration in penalty setting.

Two qualified pathways exist for lawful non-compliance with a compliance notice: establishing a reasonable excuse under s84T(3) of the IR Act, or applying to the Court for review under s84U(1); if neither pathway is pursued, the failure to comply attracts significant penalty considerations.