Application by Carmen Waters

[2025] FWC 1963

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.372—General protections

Application by Carmen Waters

(C2025/3423)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 9 JULY 2025

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

On 28 April 2025 Ms Carmen Waters made a general protections application to the Fair Work Commission under s.372 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Ms Waters’ application was not made in accordance with the Act (per s.587(1)(a))

because the prescribed fee (per s.373) has not been paid or waived. Section 587(1)(a) allows the Commission to dismiss Ms Waters’ application without conducting a hearing, so long as the applicant has been afforded procedural fairness.

Ms Waters has been given ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in the application and has also had ample opportunity to show why her 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 Ms Waters’ general protections claim using the power available under s.587(1)(a) and make the following order:

The application under s.372 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Ms Carmen Waters on 28 April 2025 is dismissed

DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Carmen Waters, an applicant under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), involved a general protections application that was dismissed by the Fair Work Commission due to non-compliance with the statutory requirements. The application, dated 28 April 2025, was made under section 372 of the Act, but it did not meet the mandatory conditions of section 587(1)(a), primarily because the requisite application fee was neither paid nor waived. The Deputy President of the Commission, Easton, presided over the matter, which was heard in Sydney on 9 July 2025. The decision was to dismiss the application without a hearing, a course of action permissible under the Act if procedural fairness has been observed.

The legal issues at the heart of this case revolved around the statutory compliance of the application and the procedural fairness afforded to Ms Waters. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the application could be dismissed without a hearing due to non-payment of the application fee, as permitted by section 587(1)(a) of the Act. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether procedural fairness was observed in providing Ms Waters with opportunities to rectify the deficiencies in her application. These issues were central to the decision-making process, as they directly influenced the procedural integrity of the case.

In delivering the decision, Deputy President Easton meticulously examined the statutory provisions and the procedural history of the case. The Deputy President noted that Ms Waters had been given multiple opportunities to address the fee issue and to argue against the dismissal of her application. Reference was made to the case of Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302, which provided a precedent for similar dismissals under analogous circumstances. Ultimately, the Deputy President concluded that procedural fairness had been observed, and that the application was rightly dismissed under section 587(1)(a) of the Act.

The final order issued by the Fair Work Commission was to dismiss the application made by Ms Carmen Waters on 28 April 2025. This decision was rendered in accordance with the statutory requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and upheld the procedural integrity of the Commission's processes.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established