Application by Hilary Bennett

[2025] FWC 1964

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.365—General protections

Application by Hilary Bennett

(C2025/3451)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 9 JULY 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 27 April 2025 Mr Hilary Bennett made a general protections application to the Fair Work Commission under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Mr Bennett’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 Bennett’s application if the application is not made in accordance with the Act. Mr Bennett 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 Bennett’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 Hilary Bennett on 27 April 2025 is dismissed

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of an application by Hilary Bennett, the Fair Work Commission was presented with a general protections application made under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The application, lodged on 27 April 2025, pertained to an alleged contravention involving dismissal. However, the application was flawed as it did not comply with section 587(1)(a) of the Act due to the absence of the prescribed fee payment or waiver, as required by section 367. This procedural oversight prompted the Commission to consider whether it should exercise its discretion to dismiss the application.

The primary legal issue for the Deputy President was whether the application could be dismissed for not adhering to the statutory requirements of the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the Deputy President had to assess if the failure to pay the prescribed fee or secure a waiver constituted a sufficient ground for dismissal under section 587(1)(a). This assessment involved considering whether Mr Bennett had been afforded adequate opportunities to rectify the application and to justify why it should not be dismissed.

The Deputy President found that Mr Bennett had indeed been given sufficient opportunities to rectify the fee-related deficiency and to present reasons for the application not being dismissed. The reasoning drew on the principles established in Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302, where similar circumstances were addressed. The Deputy President concluded that despite the opportunities provided, the application's non-compliance with the fee requirement warranted dismissal. Consequently, the application was dismissed in its entirety under the powers conferred by section 587(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act.

The final order issued by the Deputy President was that the general protections application made by Mr Hilary Bennett on 27 April 2025 is dismissed. This order underscores the importance of strict adherence to the statutory requirements in lodging applications with the Fair Work Commission.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established