Meung Thai Pty Ltd and its sole director Thanyarat Khotdet will face the Federal Circuit and Family Court in Sydney, with the company exposed to penalties of up to $192,900 and Khotdet to $19,800 over alleged underpayment of three casual workers at the former Hurstville restaurant.

The Fair Work Ombudsman filed the action after inspectors visited Meung Thai during an auditing campaign and opened an investigation. In November 2024, the regulator issued the company a compliance notice covering alleged underpayment of entitlements owed between March and May 2023.

Two of the three workers held international student visas. The third was also a casual employee.

What does the FWO allege happened?

Inspectors believe the restaurant shortchanged the workers on several fronts:

• Minimum wage rates
• Casual loadings
• Penalty rates for evening, weekend and public holiday work

The FWO also alleges Meung Thai breached workplace laws by failing to issue pay slips, an offence carrying a separate penalty of up to $93,900 for the company.

Why did the case escalate to court?

The matter moved from an administrative notice to litigation because the company allegedly failed, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the compliance notice. That notice required Meung Thai to calculate the workers' entitlements and back pay them. The FWO alleges Khotdet was involved in the non-compliance.

Alongside penalties, the regulator is seeking court orders requiring the company to comply with the original notice — meaning the business could be compelled to back pay the entitlements in addition to any fines.

The penalty structure reflects the layered exposure operators face: up to $99,000 for allegedly ignoring the compliance notice, up to $93,900 for the pay slip breach, and up to $19,800 personally for the director.

What is the regulator signalling?

Fair Work Ombudsman Anna Booth said the regulator will continue enforcing workplace laws and will take matters to court when lawful requests and record-keeping obligations go unheeded.

"Where employers do not comply, we will take appropriate action to protect employees. A court can order a business to pay penalties and to take steps to comply with a Compliance Notice, including back-paying entitlements," Booth said.

The case illustrates the compliance chain that restaurant operators in Australia can face: an audit, an investigation, a compliance notice, then Federal Court litigation if the notice is ignored. Each stage adds financial exposure — and directors can be held personally liable for involvement.

For a single-site operator, the alleged underpayment period spanned just three months and involved three casual staff, yet the maximum combined penalties exceed $212,000. Pay slip documentation failures alone account for nearly half of the company-level exposure.

The FWO's auditing campaigns continue to target venues employing migrant workers, including international students, and the Meung Thai matter signals that non-response to compliance notices — not just the underlying underpayment — is what converts investigations into court action.