| [2025] FWC 930 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Ashlee Beaumont
v
St John’s Daycare Centre Cairns Limited
(U2025/372)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON | SYDNEY, 2 APRIL 2025 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – application fee not paid or waived – application not made in accordance with the Act – - application dismissed
On 10 January 2025, Ms Ashlee Beaumont made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
Ms Beaumont’s application was not made in accordance with the Act (per s.587(1)(a)) because the prescribed fee (per s.395) has not been paid or waived.
Commission staff attempted to contact Ms Beaumont on 13 January, 14 January, 20 January, 7 February and 10 February 2025 by telephone, SMS and email however Ms Beaumont has still not paid the application fee or applied for a waiver of the fee.
Section 587 confers a discretion on the Commission to dismiss Ms Beaumont’s application if it has not been made in accordance with the Act. Ms Beaumont has had ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in her application and has 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 make the following order:
1. The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Ms Ashlee Beaumont on 10 January 2025 is dismissed.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR785782>
- AGLC
- Ashlee Beaumont v St John's Daycare Centre Cairns Limited [2025] FWC 930
- Case
- [2025] FWC 930
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Deputy President was whether the application for an unfair dismissal remedy was validly made in accordance with the Act. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the prescribed application fee was paid or waived as required by section 587(1)(a) of the Act. It was evident that Ms Beaumont's application did not comply with the legislative requirements as she failed to pay the application fee or apply for a waiver. Despite multiple attempts by Commission staff to contact Ms Beaumont and inform her of the need to pay the fee or seek a waiver, she did not rectify this deficiency. The court had to consider whether it should exercise its discretion to dismiss the application under section 587 of the Act due to non-compliance.
After reviewing the circumstances and the procedural requirements of the Act, Deputy President Easton determined that Ms Beaumont's application did not comply with the necessary provisions. The Deputy President noted that Ms Beaumont had been provided with sufficient opportunities to address the procedural default and had failed to do so. Consequently, the Deputy President exercised the discretion conferred by section 587 and dismissed the application. The dismissal was made in line with relevant case law that underscores the importance of adherence to statutory requirements in making such applications.
The final order of the Fair Work Commission was that the application for an unfair dismissal remedy made by Ms Ashlee Beaumont on 10 January 2025 is dismissed. This decision highlights the necessity for applicants to strictly comply with the procedural prerequisites of the Fair Work Act to ensure their applications are valid and can be substantively considered.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.