EOFY Sale · Save up to $750 off your legals · Ends 30 June

Claim offer
Selected cases

Federal Court of Australia · [2026] FCA 54

Fair Work Ombudsman v Super Retail Group listing

A Federal Court listing decision in a Fair Work Ombudsman underpayment case involving retail award and enterprise agreement allegations.

Federal Court of Australia4 Feb 2026

Plain-English explainers, not legal advice. Check the linked official source before you rely on a specific section, and get advice for your situation.

Get legal help

Start here

Quick read

  • Payroll underpayment litigation can keep moving even when a business wants more time because of counsel availability or overlapping test cases.
  • A Federal Court listing decision in a Fair Work Ombudsman underpayment case involving retail award and enterprise agreement allegations.

Use this to check

  • Old payroll periods can still become live litigation years later.
  • Award and enterprise agreement interpretation issues need records that survive staff and system changes.
  • Counsel availability may be considered, but the Court can still list a trial when justice requires it.

Decision snapshot

  1. 1

    What happened

    • The Fair Work Ombudsman commenced proceedings against Super Retail Group entities on 19 January 2023.
    • The FWO alleges that employees at retail stores including Macpac, Rebel, SRG Leisure and Super Cheap Auto were underpaid because of breaches of the General Retail Industry Award 2010, the Super Retail Group Enterprise Agreement 2015 and the Fair Work Act 2009.
    • The alleged underpayment period runs from 22 January 2017 to 30 March 2019, with some variations for particular employee groups.
    • The proceeding had been stayed while related Woolworths and Coles proceedings were decided because those cases also involved General Retail Industry Award issues.
  2. 2

    What the court had to decide

    • The Federal Court had to decide when to list a final hearing for separate questions in a Fair Work Ombudsman underpayment proceeding.
    • The issue was how to balance Court availability, the age of the alleged underpayments, the parties' readiness and SRG's wish to accommodate the availability of its chosen Senior Counsel.
  3. 3

    What the court decided

    • The Court ordered the proceeding to be listed for final hearing on the agreed separate questions from 7 to 18 December 2026.
    • It declined to push the matter into 2027 merely to accommodate Senior Counsel availability, given the age of the alleged underpayments and the interests of justice.

Practical impact

Practical read

  • Payroll underpayment litigation can keep moving even when a business wants more time because of counsel availability or overlapping test cases.
  • Employers should keep award, enterprise agreement, roster and payroll records trial-ready long after the pay period has ended.

Useful next steps

  • Old payroll periods can still become live litigation years later.
  • Award and enterprise agreement interpretation issues need records that survive staff and system changes.
  • Counsel availability may be considered, but the Court can still list a trial when justice requires it.
  • Related test cases can delay proceedings, but they do not remove the need for business readiness.
  • Employers should keep remediation, roster, timesheet and payroll-analysis records together.

Practical read

This judgment is about listing the trial, but the business story is bigger. The alleged underpayments went back to 2017 to 2019. By the time the case is decided, some of the alleged underpayments will be more than a decade old. That is a serious reminder for any employer relying on old rosters, award interpretations, enterprise agreement settings and payroll records.

The Court accepted that counsel availability matters, especially where Senior Counsel has been involved for years. But it was not determinative. The case had already been delayed while related Woolworths and Coles proceedings were decided. The Court listed the final hearing for December 2026 and made clear that further delay was not acceptable merely because one side preferred later dates.

For small businesses, the practical lesson is not about briefing Senior Counsel. It is about readiness. Underpayment issues can sit in the background for years before litigation finally tests them. If your business discovers a payroll issue, investigate it properly, preserve records and fix the system. Do not assume complexity, related test cases or timetable pressure will make the problem disappear.

Checks to run

Key points

  • Keep award classification, roster, timesheet and payroll records for long-running risk periods.
  • After major award test cases, review whether your payroll assumptions still hold.
  • If a regulator claim is live, prepare the evidence file before final hearing dates are forced on the parties.
  • Do not rely on timetable pressure or counsel availability as the main litigation strategy.
  • When fixing underpayments, document both the dollar remediation and the system change that prevents repeat issues.

Key takeaways

  • Old payroll periods can still become live litigation years later.
  • Award and enterprise agreement interpretation issues need records that survive staff and system changes.
  • Counsel availability may be considered, but the Court can still list a trial when justice requires it.
  • Related test cases can delay proceedings, but they do not remove the need for business readiness.
  • Employers should keep remediation, roster, timesheet and payroll-analysis records together.

Related topics

How Sprintlaw can help