| [2023] FWC 1727 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.365—General protections
Ben Joseph Lant
v
Pilbara Minerals
(C2023/3386)
| VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI | SYDNEY, 14 JULY 2023 |
Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal – application dismissed.
On 12 June 2023, Mr Ben Joseph Lant (applicant) has made an application under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act). The applicant alleges that he was dismissed in contravention of the general protection provisions in Part 3-1 of the Act.
The application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) (regulations) or by a completed application for waiver of the lodgement fee (waiver application). The applicant has not responded to correspondence from the Commission alerting him to this deficiency, nor has the deficiency been rectified. I have decided to dismiss the application for the following reasons.
Context
On 15 June 2023, the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Lant’s nominated email address advising that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wished to proceed with the application. The email further stated as follows:
“Please pay the application fee within 7 calendar days (or apply to have the fee waived) so we can progress your case.
If you don’t make payment within 7 days your application may be dismissed.”
On 22 June 2023, the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Lant’s nominated email address reminding that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wished to proceed with the application. The correspondence instructed the applicant on how to pay the application fee or make a waiver application and further stated as follows:
“Reminder: You need to pay the application fee (or apply to have the fee waived) or your application may be dismissed.”.
A final attempt to contact Mr Lant on his nominated telephone number was made by the Commission on 26 June 2023 to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. The call was not answered, and a voicemail message was left advising Mr Lant that payment of the required fee was still outstanding.
To date, the applicant has not paid the lodgement fee or filed a completed waiver application.
Legislative framework
In relation to an application made pursuant to s.365 of the Act, s.367(1) provides that the application “must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the regulations.” At the time the application was made, the regulations prescribed a fee of $77.80. The regulations also allow for an application to be made for the fee to be waived.
Section 587 of the Act provides as follows:
587 Dismissing applications
(1) Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if:
(a) the application is not made in accordance with this Act; or
(b) the application is frivolous or vexatious; or
(c) the application has no reasonable prospects of success.
…
(2) Despite paragraphs (1) (b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:
(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or
(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.
(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:
(a) on its own initiative; or
(b) on application.
Consideration and conclusion
The applicant has neither paid the lodgement fee nor sought a fee waiver. Accordingly, the application is not made in accordance with s.367 of the Act.
The applicant has taken no action to address the deficiency despite being notified of it by the Commission on multiple occasions. In these circumstances, I have decided to exercise my discretion to dismiss the application in accordance with s.587(1)(a) of the Act.
The application is dismissed.
VICE PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR764265>
- AGLC
- Ben Joseph Lant v Pilbara Minerals [2023] FWC 1727
- Case
- [2023] FWC 1727
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the applicant's failure to pay the required fee or seek a waiver constituted a valid ground for dismissing the application. The court referenced sections 367(1) and 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which mandate that applications must be accompanied by the prescribed fee and allow for the dismissal of applications that are not made in accordance with the Act. Despite the applicant's multiple opportunities to rectify this deficiency, including direct correspondence from the Commission and a voicemail message, he failed to take any action.
The court concluded that the application did not comply with the legislative requirements as it was neither accompanied by the requisite fee nor did it include a completed waiver application. The court exercised its discretion under section 587(1)(a) of the Act, dismissing the application due to non-compliance with the procedural prerequisites. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory requirements when lodging applications with the Fair Work Commission.
The final orders of the court were to dismiss the application made by Ben Joseph Lant against Pilbara Minerals for non-compliance with the procedural requirements of the Fair Work Regulations 2009. The applicant's failure to address the fee deficiency, despite multiple notifications from the Commission, led to the dismissal of his application.
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.