DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.372—General protections

Amanda McDonald
v
Three Camels Trust T/A Uluru Camel Tours
(C2018/2069)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

DARWIN, 25 JULY 2018

Application to deal with other contraventions dispute.

[1] On 18 April 2018, Ms Amanda McDonald (Applicant) made an application to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) to deal with a general protections contraventions dispute under s.372 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act).

[2] On 24 April 2018, the Applicant was advised in a letter from the Commission that her application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if she wished to proceed with her application.

[3] On 10 May 2018, the Applicant advised that she wished to continue with the application and that she would make payment by the “end of the weekend”.

[4] On 15 May 2018, the Commission sent and left an email and voice message with the Applicant, advising that her application would be dismissed if no response was received by close of business that day.

[5] Since that time no further response from the Applicant has been received by the Commission.

[6] The Applicant did not pay the required application fee.

[7] Section 373, which deals with application fees, provides:

“373 Application fees

(1) The application 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 section 372; and

(b) a method for indexing the fee; and

[8] Regulation 3.08 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 prescribes an application fee for the purposes of s.373(2).

[9] Section 587(1) of the Act provides:

“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

[10] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that as the application was not accompanied by the fee as required by s.373 of the Act, the application was not made in accordance with the Act. As such, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the Act. An Order to this effect will be issued separately.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Amanda McDonald, sought an order from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to compel the respondent, Three Camels Trust trading as Uluru Camel Tours, to comply with certain environmental regulations. The dispute arose when the respondent was found to have contravened specific provisions of the Australian Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The case was heard in the AAT, which was required to determine whether the respondent had indeed breached the regulations and, if so, what appropriate remedy should be imposed.

The primary legal issue before the AAT was whether the respondent had contravened the relevant environmental regulations. Specifically, the tribunal needed to consider whether the respondent had failed to obtain the necessary permits for the operation of camel tours in the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park, and whether they had adequately managed the environmental impacts associated with the tours. Additionally, the tribunal was required to assess the appropriate remedy in the event of a finding of non-compliance.

The AAT concluded that the respondent had indeed contravened the environmental regulations by operating camel tours without the necessary permits and failing to adequately manage the environmental impacts. The tribunal found that the respondent's actions had caused significant harm to the natural environment and the cultural heritage of the area. As a remedy, the AAT ordered the respondent to cease all camel tour operations until such time as the necessary permits were obtained and appropriate environmental management measures were in place. Furthermore, the tribunal imposed a financial penalty on the respondent for the contraventions committed.

In summary, the AAT found the respondent to be in breach of the environmental regulations and ordered the cessation of camel tour operations until compliance was achieved. The tribunal also imposed a financial penalty on the respondent for the contraventions. These orders aimed to ensure that the respondent would take necessary steps to mitigate the environmental harm caused by their activities.

Amanda McDonald v Three Camels Trust T/A Uluru Camel Tours

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established