Adam Read v Young Henrys Brewing Company Pty Ltd T/A Young Henrys

Case [2023] FWC 844


[2023] FWC 844

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Adam Read
v

Young Henrys Brewing Company Pty Ltd T/A Young Henrys

(U2023/1805)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 6 APRIL 2023

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

  1. On 7 March 2023 Mr Adam Read made an application to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).

  1. The application was incomplete in that Mr Read did not pay the required fee or file a completed waiver form.

  1. On 8 March 2023 the Commission sent correspondence to Mr Read’s nominated email address advising that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wished to proceed with the application. That correspondence also warned that if payment is not made or a waiver form is not received within 7 calendar days the application may be dismissed.

  1. On 9 March 2023 an SMS notification was sent to Mr Read’s nominated telephone number advising him of the requirement to action the payment request email from the Fair Work Commission.

  1. On 22 March 2023 the Commission again sent correspondence to Mr Read’s nominated email address reminding him that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wished to proceed with the application and that if no payment or waiver is received that his application may be dismissed.

  1. A further attempt to contact Mr Read on his nominated telephone number was made by the Commission on 24 March 2023 to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. The call was not answered. A voicemail message was left advising Mr Read that payment of the required fee was still outstanding.

  1. A final attempt to contact Mr Read on their nominated telephone number was made by the Commission on 28 March 2023 to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. The call was not answered. A voicemail message was left advising Mr Read that payment of the required fee was still outstanding.

  2. To date there has been no response from Mr Read, the required fee has not been paid and a completed waiver form has not been received.

  1. Section 395 of the FW Act, which deals with application fees, provides as follows:

395 Application fees

(1) An application to the FWC under this Division must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the regulations.

(2) The regulations may prescribe:

(a) a fee for making an application to the FWC under this Division; and

(b) a method for indexing the fee; and

(c) the circumstances in which all or part of the fee may be waived or refunded.

  1. Section 587(1) of the FW Act provides as follows:

587 Dismissing applications

(1) Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if:

(a) the application is not made in accordance with this Act; or

(b) the application is frivolous or vexatious; or

(c) the application has no reasonable prospect of success.

  1. I am satisfied that, as the application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the FW Act, the application was not made in accordance with the FW Act. As such, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the FW Act.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR760950>

Details
AGLC
Adam Read v Young Henrys Brewing Company Pty Ltd T/A Young Henrys [2023] FWC 844
Case
[2023] FWC 844
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Adam Read v Young Henrys Brewing Company Pty Ltd T/A Young Henrys, the applicant sought a remedy for unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was dismissed due to non-compliance with the requirements of the Fair Work Act, specifically the failure to pay the requisite application fee or submit a completed waiver form. The Fair Work Commission had sent multiple communications to Mr Read, advising him of the requirement to either pay the fee or submit a waiver form within a specified timeframe. Despite these attempts, Mr Read failed to respond or comply with the Commission's requests.

The primary legal issues the Fair Work Commission needed to address were whether the application complied with the statutory requirements of the Fair Work Act and whether the application could proceed under the circumstances outlined in the Act. Specifically, the Commission considered whether the application was dismissed due to non-compliance with section 395, which mandates the payment of a prescribed fee for making an application to the Fair Work Commission, and section 587(1)(a), which allows for the dismissal of an application if it is not made in accordance with the Act.

In dismissing the application, Commissioner Bissett held that the applicant’s failure to pay the required application fee or submit a completed waiver form rendered the application non-compliant with section 395 of the Fair Work Act. Consequently, the application was dismissed pursuant to section 587(1)(a) of the Act, which permits the dismissal of an application if it is not made in accordance with the Act. The Commission found that the application did not meet the necessary procedural requirements and thus could not proceed.

The Commission's decision concluded that the application for an unfair dismissal remedy was dismissed due to non-compliance with the Fair Work Act. No further action will be taken on the application as it stands.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.