Accountant made to create his own payslips, claims underpayment of $31k

The court found that Khan failed to provide Ahmed with payslips during the entirety of his employment, commencing 8 February 2023 until his resignation on 8 July 2024 due to “the impact of the unsafe work environment on [his] health”.

In her 13 July 2026 decision, Justice Jane Paingakulam found that Ahmed was not provided with payslips during his employment with Jazza and did not receive any payslips until more than one year after his resignation.

Ahmed gave evidence that “Mr Khan asked him if he would generate his own payslips if he were given access to Jazaa’s Xero account”.

“His account is that he said that he would prefer Jazaa to do it and that he did not receive any pay slips thereafter during the period of his employment,” said Justice Paingakulam.

This led the accountant to generate an Excel spreadsheet setting out the hours that he worked during his employment, she added. The court found that, according to his calculations, Ahmed worked a total of 3,081.5 hours for the firm.

Ahmed joined the firm shortly after it was established in early 2023. Khan told Ahmed that he was looking for a full-time accountant to work for him on a long-term basis; however, warned that he could not afford to pay him until around tax time in June 2023.

“Mr Ahmed accepted that it was made clear to him from the outset that he would be working on an unpaid basis until June 2023,” Justice Paingakulam said.

“Mr Ahmed stated that he needed full-time paid work in order to be eligible for a skills assessment that would lead to him getting a visa to stay in Australia.”

The accountant told the court that during the four months of unpaid work, he worked on income and financial statements as well as preparing income and GST tax documents for clients of the firm.

Ahmed was remunerated from 1 June 2023, during which he performed similar work and also contacted the ATO on behalf of clients.

“Mr Ahmed stated that the workload was particularly high in the months of June and July, coinciding with the end of the financial year and during that period he worked until anywhere from 11 pm to 1 am,” Justice Paingkulam found.

Ahmed gave evidence that he worked extra hours “out of a concern that he would lose his job if he refused to do so, and that there was an implied expectation that he would work the additional hours as necessary to meet the workload allocated to him.”

Justice Paingkulam accepted Ahmed’s evidence that he was “not provided with payslips or his annual leave and superannuation termination pay entitlements”.

“Mr Khan was the arms and legs of Jazaa. It was his responsibility to keep employee records and make them available on request. He was the person who paid Mr Ahmed’s wages and was responsible for providing Mr Ahmed with pay slips which accurately recorded those payments,” she said.

Upon consideration of all evidence, Justice Paingkulam was satisfied that Jazaa and Khan had breached the Fair Work Act, and that Khan was “knowingly concerned in or party to the contraventions of the FW Act and the FW Regulations found to have been perpetrated by Jazaa”.

Hence, the judge ruled that the firm and Khan were jointly liable for compensation arising from the underpayment of wages, annual leave, and superannuation to Ahmed.

“As I intend to hear the parties further about the quantum of compensation (if the parties cannot arrive at a consent position in light of my findings) and penalties, an order at this stage for interest up to judgment, pursuant to s 100 of the CPA and s 547 of the FW Act would be premature,” Justice Paingakulam said.

Justice Paingakulam will carry out a further hearing to determine pecuniary penalties against Khan and the firm.

The case citation: Ahmed v Jazaa Accountants Pty Ltd [2026] NSWIC 37 (13 July 2026)