Amanda Moore v Reliance (Aus) Pty Ltd T/A I'm in the Right

Case [2023] FWC 257


[2023] FWC 257

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Amanda Moore
v

Reliance (Aus) Pty Ltd T/A I’m in the Right

(U2022/12042)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 31 JANUARY 2023

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

  1. On 20 December 2022 Amanda Moore 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 Ms Moore did not pay the required fee or file a completed waiver form.

  1. On 6 January 2023 the Commission emailed correspondence to Ms Moore’s Representative’s nominated email address advising that Ms Moore’s application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if she 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 January 2023 an SMS notification was also sent to both Ms Moore’s and her Representative’s nominated telephone numbers advising of the requirement to action the payment request email from the Fair Work Commission.

  1. On 18 January 2023 the Commission emailed correspondence to Ms Moore’s nominated email address reminding her that her application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if she wished to proceed with the application. That correspondence also warned that if payment is not made or a waiver form is not received, the application may be dismissed. 

  1. A final attempt to contact Ms Moore and her Representative on their nominated telephone numbers was made by the Commission on 25 January 2023 to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. The calls were not answered. A voicemail message was left advising Ms Moore that payment of the required fee was still outstanding.  A voicemail facility was unavailable on the Representative’s telephone line.

  1. To date there has been no response from Ms Moore, or her Representative, 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

<PR750071>

Details
AGLC
Amanda Moore v Reliance (Aus) Pty Ltd T/A I'm in the Right [2023] FWC 257
Case
[2023] FWC 257
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Amanda Moore applied to the Fair Work Commission for an unfair dismissal remedy, but her application was dismissed due to her failure to pay the required filing fee or file a completed waiver form. Reliance (Aus) Pty Ltd T/A I’m in the Right was the respondent in the matter. The Commission repeatedly attempted to contact Moore and her representative to resolve the fee issue, but to no avail.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether Moore's application complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine if the application was made in accordance with the Act, given that it was not accompanied by the prescribed fee. The relevant sections of the Act were s.395, which deals with application fees, and s.587(1)(a), which allows the Commission to dismiss applications that are not made in accordance with the Act. The Commission found that the application did not comply with s.395 because it lacked the requisite fee, and therefore, under s.587(1)(a), the application was dismissed.

The Commission concluded that Moore's application was not made in accordance with the Fair Work Act as it failed to include the required filing fee. Despite multiple attempts to contact Moore and her representative to address this issue, no action was taken. Consequently, the application was dismissed. The dismissal was pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the Act, which permits the Commission to dismiss applications that do not comply with the Act's requirements.

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.