Application by Brodie Eldridge Summary

[2025] FWC 841

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.365—General protections

Application by Brodie Eldridge

(C2025/564)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 26 MARCH 2025

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal – application fee not paid or waived – application not made in accordance with the Act – application dismissed.

On 22 January 2025 Mr Brodie Eldridge made a general protections application to the Fair Work Commission under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Mr Eldridge’s application was not made in accordance with the Act (per s.587(1)(a)) because the prescribed fee (per s.367) has not been paid or waived.

Section 587 confers a discretion on the Commission to dismiss Mr Eldridge’s application if the application is not made in accordance with the Act. Mr Eldridge has been given ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in the application and has also had ample opportunity to show why his application should not be dismissed under s.587 (see generally Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302 at [15]-[16] and the cases cited therein).

I have decided to dismiss Mr Eldridge’s general protections claim using the power available under s.587(1)(a) and make the following order:

The application under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Brodie Eldridge on 22 January 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of an application by Brodie Eldridge to the Fair Work Commission, Deputy President Easton addressed a dismissal of a general protections application under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The applicant, Mr. Brodie Eldridge, sought to address contraventions involving his dismissal, but the application was flawed as the prescribed application fee had not been paid or waived, as required by section 587(1)(a) of the Act. This omission necessitated the court's attention to whether the application could be dismissed on the basis that it was not made in accordance with the Act.

The primary legal issue before Deputy President Easton was whether Mr. Eldridge's application could be dismissed for non-compliance with the Act's requirements regarding the payment of the application fee. This issue was compounded by the fact that Mr. Eldridge had been given sufficient opportunities to rectify the deficiency and to argue against dismissal. The court had to consider the precedent set by Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302, which provided guidance on the circumstances under which an application might be dismissed for non-compliance.

Deputy President Easton found that Mr. Eldridge's application was indeed not made in accordance with the Act due to the outstanding application fee. Despite the opportunities provided to Mr. Eldridge to remedy this issue, he had failed to do so. The court exercised its discretion under section 587(1)(a) of the Act and dismissed the application. The decision was influenced by the precedent and the fact that Mr. Eldridge had not demonstrated any compelling reason why his application should not be dismissed. The dismissal order was made on 26 March 2025, effectively concluding Mr. Eldridge's general protections claim.

Application by Brodie Eldridge

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established