| [2023] FWC 1573 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Brendan Purcell
v
The Trustee For The Korumburra Hotel Unit Trust
(U2023/4416)
| COMMISSIONER BISSETT | MELBOURNE, 30 JUNE 2023 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy
On 20 May 2023 Mr Brendan Purcell 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).
The application was incomplete in that Mr Purcell did not pay the required fee or file a completed waiver form.
On 25 May 2023 the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Purcell’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.
On 26 May 2023, an SMS notification was sent to Mr Purcell’s nominated telephone number advising of the requirement to action the payment request email from the Fair Work Commission.
On 31 May 2023 the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Purcell’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. Later that same day an attempt to contact Mr Purcell was made to obtain payment. The call was not answered. A voicemail message was left advising Mr Purcell to call the Commission back, to pay the filing fee and that if the fee was not paid, his application may be dismissed.
A further attempt to contact Mr Purcell on his nominated telephone number was made on 7 June 2023 to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. The call was not answered. A voicemail message was left advising Mr Purcell to call the Commission back.
A final attempt to contact the applicant’s representative, Employee Dismissals, on their nominated telephone number was made by the Commission on 14 June 2023 to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. The call was not answered. A voicemail message was left advising the Applicant’s Representative to call the Commission back.
To date there has been no response from Mr Purcell, the required fee has not been paid and a completed waiver form has not been received.
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.
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.
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.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR763734>
- AGLC
- Brendan Purcell v The Trustee for the Korumburra Hotel Unit Trust [2023] FWC 1573
- Case
- [2023] FWC 1573
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the application could proceed despite not being accompanied by the prescribed fee, as required by section 395 of the FW Act. Section 587(1)(a) of the FW Act allows the FWC to dismiss an application if it is not made in accordance with the Act. The Commission considered whether the application met the criteria for dismissal under section 587(1)(a) of the FW Act.
The Commission found that the application did not comply with the FW Act as it was not accompanied by the required fee. Despite multiple attempts to contact Mr Purcell and his representative, Employee Dismissals, no action was taken to remedy the situation. Commissioner Bisset concluded that the application was not made in accordance with the FW Act, and therefore dismissed the application under section 587(1)(a) of the FW Act.
The Commission dismissed the application for unfair dismissal remedy made by Brendan Purcell against The Trustee for the Korumburra Hotel Unit Trust. The decision was based on the non-compliance with the FW Act due to the absence of the required fee and the failure to address the Commission's requests to remedy the incomplete 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.