Application by Darshan Singh Summary

[2025] FWC 86

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.372—General protections

Application by Darshan Singh

(C2024/8406)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BEAUMONT

PERTH, 10 JANUARY 2025

Application to deal with other contraventions dispute – application dismissed.

On 21 November 2024, Mr Darshan Singh made a general protections application not involving dismissal to the Fair Work Commission under s.372 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act).

Mr Singh’s application was not made in accordance with the Act (per s.587(1)(a) of the Act) because the prescribed fee (per s.373) has not been paid or waived. Section 587 confers a discretion on the Commission to dismiss Mr Singh’s application.

Mr Singh has been given ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in the application (see generally Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302 at [15]-[16] and the cases cited therein).

Pursuant to s.587(3)(a), I have decided to dismiss Mr Singh’s general protections application on the basis that it has not been made in accordance with the Act as provided under s.587(1)(a). I therefore make the following order:

The application under s.372 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Darshan Singh on 21 November 2024 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Darshan Singh lodged an application with the Fair Work Commission, seeking relief under section 372 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) for a contravention not involving dismissal. The Commission was tasked with determining whether Mr Singh's application should proceed, given that it was not made in accordance with the Act due to the non-payment of the prescribed fee as stipulated in section 373 of the Act. Deputy President Beaumont presided over the matter in Perth on 10 January 2025, focusing on whether the application should be dismissed under section 587 of the Act for not adhering to the mandatory procedural requirements.

The central legal issue revolved around whether the Commission had the discretion to dismiss Mr Singh's application due to the non-compliance with the fee payment requirement under section 587(1)(a) of the Act. This required the Court to consider whether Mr Singh had been provided sufficient opportunity to rectify the deficiency, as per established case law, including Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302. The Deputy President also had to determine if the dismissal of the application was warranted under section 587(3)(a) of the Act.

Upon reviewing the matter, Deputy President Beaumont concluded that Mr Singh's application was not made in accordance with the Act due to the failure to pay the prescribed fee. The Deputy President found that Mr Singh had been afforded adequate opportunity to rectify the deficiency, referencing previous cases where similar situations were addressed. Consequently, the application was dismissed pursuant to section 587(1)(a) of the Act. The Deputy President made an order dismissing Mr Singh's application under section 372 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Application by Darshan Singh

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established