Benjamin D'Agostino v Lusal Pty Ltd

Case [2023] FWC 1067


[2023] FWC 1067

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Benjamin D’Agostino
v

Lusal Pty Ltd

(U2023/2555)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT O’NEILL

MELBOURNE, 5 MAY 2023

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

  1. On 27 March 2023 Mr Benjamin D’Agostino made an application to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).

  1. The application was incomplete in that Mr D’Agostino did not pay the required fee or file a completed waiver form.

  1. On 2 April 2023 the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr D’Agostino’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. That correspondence also warned that if payment is not made or a waiver form is not received within 7 calendar days the application may be dismissed.

  1. On 12 April 2023 the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr D’Agostino’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. That correspondence also warned that if payment is not made or a waiver form is not received, the application may be dismissed.

  1. A final attempt to contact Mr D’Agostino on his nominated telephone number was made by the Commission on 13 April 2023. However, Mr D’Agostino could not be reached. A voicemail message was left advising Mr D’Agostino that payment of the required fee or a completed waiver form was still outstanding and his matter may be at risk of being dismissed. Both the matter and Commission’s contact number were quoted.

  1. To date there has been no response from Mr D’Agostino, the required fee has not been paid and a completed waiver form has not been received.

  1. Section 395 of the FW Act, which deals with application fees, provides as follows:

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.

  1. Section 587(1) of the FW 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 prospect of success.

  1. I am satisfied that, as the application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the FW Act, the application was not made in accordance with the FW Act. As such, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the FW Act.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR761664>

Details
AGLC
Benjamin D'Agostino v Lusal Pty Ltd [2023] FWC 1067
Case
[2023] FWC 1067
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Benjamin D'Agostino lodged an application with the Fair Work Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal against his former employer, Lusal Pty Ltd. The application was dismissed by the Commission on the basis that it was not accompanied by the required filing fee and Mr D'Agostino had failed to respond to multiple communications from the Commission about the matter. The application was dismissed pursuant to section 587(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission was required to determine whether the application was made in accordance with the Fair Work Act. The relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act state that an application to the Fair Work Commission must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the regulations, and that an application may be dismissed if it is not made in accordance with the Act. The Commission was satisfied that Mr D'Agostino's application was not accompanied by the required fee and that the application was not made in accordance with the Fair Work Act. Accordingly, the application was dismissed. The Fair Work Commission dismissed Mr D'Agostino's application for unfair dismissal remedy as it was not made in accordance with the Fair Work Act. The Commission had warned Mr D'Agostino that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wished to proceed with the application. When he failed to respond to multiple correspondences, the Commission dismissed the 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.