Agustin Navarrete v Expresso Bonsai Pty Ltd

Case [2022] FWC 926


[2022] FWC 926

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Agustin Navarrete
v

Expresso Bonsai Pty Ltd

(U2022/3640)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 22 APRIL 2022

Application for relief from unfair dismissal – incomplete application – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.

  1. On 26 March 2022 Mr Agustin Navarrete 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 form filed by Mr Navarrete was incomplete in that the filing fee was unpaid. Additionally, no street address or email address for the respondent was provided.

  1. On 28 March 2022 the Commission attempted to contact Mr Navarrete on his nominated telephone number to request the missing details. However the number provided was incorrect. The Commission phoned Mr Navarrete’s representative Ms. Lauren Navarrete and left a voicemail advising the application is incomplete. The Commission advised an email address or a physical address for the Respondent was required, and the filing fee needed to be paid or a fee waiver form completed. 

  1. Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Navarrete’s nominated email address advising that he provide further details as the application was incomplete and that the filing fee remained unpaid. That correspondence advised that if the missing information and the filing fee was not provided within 14 days, the application may be dismissed. 

  1. As the required information was not received, on 8 April 2022 the Commission attempted to contact Mr Navarrete’s representative Ms Navarrete on her nominated telephone number. A voicemail message was left requesting an email address or physical address for the Respondent and for the filing fee to be paid.

  1. To date, no response has been received and Mr Navarrete has not provided the necessary details as requested.

  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. In these circumstances, I have determined that the application was not made in accordance with the FW Act. As such, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(a) of the FW Act. An order[1] to this effect will be issued with this decision.

COMMISSIONER


[1] PR740578.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR740577>

Details
AGLC
Agustin Navarrete v Expresso Bonsai Pty Ltd [2022] FWC 926
Case
[2022] FWC 926
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Agustin Navarrete filed an application for unfair dismissal against Expresso Bonsai Pty Ltd under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was incomplete as it lacked the required filing fee and did not include the respondent's address or email address. The Fair Work Commission attempted to contact Navarrete and his representative to obtain the missing information and the filing fee, but these attempts were unsuccessful. As a result, the Commission dismissed the application under section 587(1)(a) of the FW Act, finding that the application did not comply with the Act.

The legal issue before the Court was whether the application complied with the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the incomplete application could be rectified or if it should be dismissed. The Court considered section 395 of the FW Act, which requires applications to be accompanied by the prescribed fee, and section 587(1)(a), which allows for the dismissal of applications that are not made in accordance with the Act. Given the failure to provide the necessary information and fee, the Court found that the application did not comply with the Act.

The Court concluded that the application was incomplete and did not meet the requirements of the Fair Work Act. Despite attempts to contact Navarrete and his representative to obtain the missing details, no response was received. The Court determined that the application was not made in accordance with the Act and dismissed it under section 587(1)(a). An order to this effect will be issued with the decision.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the application for unfair dismissal be dismissed. This decision highlights the importance of ensuring that applications to the Commission are complete and comply with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. Failure to provide the necessary information and fee can result in the dismissal of the application, as seen in this case.

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.