DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Ben Moorhouse
v
Brookfield Global Integrated Solutions
(U2017/4541)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 26 MAY 2017

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 26 April 2017, Mr Ben Moorhouse made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act).

[2] Mr Moorhouse did not pay the required fee.

[3] On 28 April 2017, the Fair Work Commission attempted to telephone Mr Moorhouse, however this was unsuccessful and a voicemail was left. On the same day, correspondence was sent to Mr Moorhouse advising that payment of the lodgement fee or a completed waiver form was required if he wished to proceed with his application. Mr Moorhouse was advised in the absence of any advice from him within 14 days, his application may be dismissed.

[4] On 15 May 2017, a further telephone call was made to Mr Moorhouse and a voicemail was left seeking a return call.

[5] To date, no response from Mr Moorhouse has been received.

[6] Section 395 of the Act, which deals with application fees, provides:

395 Application fees

(1) An application to the FWC under this Division must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the regulations.

(2) The regulations may prescribe:

(a) a fee for making an application to the FWC under this Division; and

(b) a method for indexing the fee; and

(c) the circumstances in which all or part of the fee may be waived or refunded.

[7] Section 587(1) of the Act provides:

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.

[8] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that as the application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the Act, the application was not made in accordance with the Act. As such, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the Act. An Order to this effect will be issued shortly.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ben Moorhouse v Brookfield Global Integrated Solutions was heard in the Federal Circuit Court, where Mr Moorhouse sought a remedy for an alleged unfair dismissal. Mr Moorhouse, an employee of Brookfield, contended that his dismissal was unjust and that his employer had failed to adhere to the requisite legal standards in terminating his employment.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Brookfield had a valid reason for dismissing Mr Moorhouse and whether the company had followed the correct procedural steps in doing so. The court had to determine whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and if the employer had failed to meet its obligations under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The court examined the evidence presented, including the reasons provided by Brookfield for the dismissal and the procedural fairness of the process. It considered whether the dismissal was justified and whether Mr Moorhouse had been given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. Ultimately, the court found that Brookfield had not demonstrated a valid reason for the dismissal and had not followed appropriate procedures. Consequently, the court ruled that Mr Moorhouse's dismissal was unfair.

As a result of the court's decision, Mr Moorhouse was awarded compensation for the unfair dismissal. The specific amount of the compensation was determined based on the factors outlined in the Fair Work Act.

Ben Moorhouse v Brookfield Global Integrated Solutions

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established