Application by Riley Baldwin Summary

[2025] FWC 1962

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.372—General protections

Application by Riley Baldwin

(C2025/3276)

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 21 April 2025 Mr Riley Baldwin made a general protections application to the Fair Work Commission under s.372 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Mr Baldwin’s 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 Mr Baldwin’s application without conducting a hearing, so long as the applicant has been afforded procedural fairness.

Mr Baldwin 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 Baldwin’s 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 Riley Baldwin on 21 April 2025 is dismissed

DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Riley Baldwin made a general protections application to the Fair Work Commission under section 372 of the Fair Work Act 2009, alleging contraventions not involving dismissal. The application was dismissed by Deputy President Easton, who found that the application had not been made in accordance with the Act due to the failure to pay or waive the prescribed fee, as required by section 373 of the Act. This deficiency was noted under section 587(1)(a) of the Act, which allows the Commission to dismiss an application without conducting a hearing, provided procedural fairness is afforded to the applicant.

The legal issue before the court was whether the application could be dismissed due to the non-payment of the prescribed fee, and if procedural fairness had been observed in the process. The court considered whether Baldwin had been given a reasonable opportunity to rectify the deficiency and to present reasons why his application should not be dismissed. This consideration was informed by previous cases, including Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge, where similar procedural matters were addressed.

After reviewing the circumstances, the court determined that Baldwin had been given sufficient opportunity to pay the fee or demonstrate why the application should not be dismissed. Given the clear statutory requirement for the fee and the precedent set by Bond v Carbridge, the Deputy President found that procedural fairness had been maintained. Consequently, the application was dismissed in accordance with section 587(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act.

The court ordered that Riley Baldwin’s general protections application made on 21 April 2025 under section 372 of the Fair Work Act 2009 be dismissed. This order reflects the statutory requirement for the payment of the application fee and the procedural fairness afforded to Baldwin throughout the process.

Application by Riley Baldwin

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established