Caitlan Maw v Gregory Gilbert Moore

Case [2023] FWC 1784


[2023] FWC 1784

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Caitlan Maw
v

Gregory Gilbert Moore

(U2023/4582)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 21 JULY 2023

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – incomplete application – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.

  1. On 26 May 2023 Caitlan Maw (the Applicant) 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. Prior to the application proceeding to conciliation, it was identified that the filing fee waiver form filed with the application was not legible. As a result of this, on 13 June 2023 the Commission attempted to contact the Applicant on their nominated telephone number with respect to the waiver form. The call was not answered. A voicemail message was left asking the Applicant to please resend the waiver form as the form submitted could not be read.

  1. Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to the Applicant’s nominated email address advising that their application required a completed waiver form. That correspondence also warned that if the waiver application was not provided within 14 days the application may be dismissed. This correspondence also indicated that the Applicant could alternatively make payment should they wish to pay the filing fee. An SMS notification was sent to the Applicant’s nominated telephone number, requesting that they contact the Commission.

  1. On 3 July 2023, the Commission attempted to contact the Applicant on their nominated telephone number regarding the Applicant’s incomplete waiver form. The call was not answered. A voicemail message was left requesting the Applicant contact the Commission by 6 July 2023.

  1. To date there has been no response from the Applicant, 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.


COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR764446>

Details
AGLC
Caitlan Maw v Gregory Gilbert Moore [2023] FWC 1784
Case
[2023] FWC 1784
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Caitlan Maw lodged an application for unfair dismissal against Gregory Gilbert Moore with the Fair Work Commission. The application was dismissed by the Commission on the basis that it was incomplete, as the required filing fee waiver form was not legible and the filing fee was not paid. The Commission made multiple attempts to contact Maw to rectify the issue, but she did not respond. The Commission dismissed the application under section 587 of the Fair Work Act because it was not made in accordance with the Act, and it had no reasonable prospect of success.

The main legal issue before the Commissioner was whether the application could be dismissed for not complying with the Act, specifically in relation to the fee and the waiver form. The Commissioner considered section 395 of the Fair Work Act, which requires an application to be accompanied by a fee or a completed waiver form, and section 587, which allows the Commission to dismiss an application that is not made in accordance with the Act, among other things. The Commissioner found that the application was not made in accordance with the Act as it was incomplete, and dismissed it as a result.

The Commissioner found that Maw's application was dismissed for not complying with the Fair Work Act. The Commissioner noted that the application was not accompanied by the required fee or a legible waiver form, and that Maw did not respond to attempts to contact her to rectify the issue. The Commissioner found that the application was not made in accordance with the Act and had no reasonable prospect of success, and dismissed it under section 587 of the Fair Work Act.

No orders were made as the application was dismissed.

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.