| [2022] FWC 2903 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Brendan Trickett
v
Raiser Pacific Pty Ltd
(U2022/9669)
| COMMISSIONER BISSETT | MELBOURNE, 31 OCTOBER 2022 |
Application for relief from unfair dismissal – unpaid application – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.
On 29 September 2022 Mr Brendan Trickett 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 as Mr Trickett did not pay the required fee or file a completed fee waiver form.
On 3 October 2022 the Commission attempted to contact Mr Trickett via his nominated telephone number to discuss payment of the required fee, however the call was not answered. A voicemail to text message service was used to send Mr Trickett a message requesting he call the Commission and refer to the email correspondence to be sent later that day.
Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Trickett’s nominated email address advising that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed fee waiver form if he wished to progress with his application. The correspondence also warned that if payment was not made or a fee waiver form was not received, the application may be dismissed.
On 17 October 2022 Mr Trickett supplied further information to the Commission however, Mr Trickett did not pay the required fee or file a completed fee waiver form.
On 25 October 2022 the Commission made a final attempt to contact Mr Trickett via his nominated telephone number, however the call was not answered. A voicemail to text message service was used to send Mr Trickett a message informing him that payment of the required fee was still outstanding, and that the application may be dismissed if the required fee was not paid, or a completed fee waiver form was not filed by 26 October 2022.
To date there has been no response from Mr Trickett.
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:
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.Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, 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. An order[1] to this effect will be issued shortly.
COMMISSIONER
[1] PR747474
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR747473>
- AGLC
- Brendan Trickett v Raiser Pacific Pty Ltd [2022] FWC 2903
- Case
- [2022] FWC 2903
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Commission was whether Trickett's application complied with the procedural requirements of the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the application could be dismissed for not being accompanied by the prescribed fee, as per section 395 of the Act. The Commission considered whether the application met the criteria for dismissal under section 587(1) of the FW Act, which allows for the dismissal of an application if it is not made in accordance with the Act or if it has no reasonable prospect of success. The Commission concluded that the application did not comply with the Act due to the missing fee, leading to its dismissal.
In reaching its decision, the Commission noted that Trickett had been given multiple opportunities to pay the required fee or submit a fee waiver form. Despite these attempts, Trickett did not respond, and no fee was paid. The Commission was satisfied that the application did not meet the requirements of the Act and thus dismissed it under section 587(1)(a). An order to this effect will be issued shortly.
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.