| [2023] FWC 925 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Cassandra Thong
v
Virtual Business Partners Pty Ltd
(U2023/2697)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT O’NEILL | MELBOURNE, 20 APRIL 2023 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy
On 30 March 2023 Ms Cassandra Thong 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 Ms Thong did not pay the required fee or file a completed waiver form.
On 4 April 2023 the Commission emailed correspondence to Ms Thong’s nominated email address advising that her application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if she 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 5 April 2023, the Commission sent a SMS notification to Ms Thong’s nominated telephone number advising of the requirement to action the payment request email from the Fair Work Commission.
A final attempt to contact Ms Thong on her nominated telephone number was made by the Commission on 13 April 2023 to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. The call was not answered and a voicemail message was left advising Ms Thong that payment of the required fee was still outstanding. The voicemail message directed Ms Thong to pay the filing fee (or apply to have the fee waived) by close of business that day.
To date there has been no response from Ms Thong, 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.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR761215>
- AGLC
- Cassandra Thong v Virtual Business Partners Pty Ltd [2023] FWC 925
- Case
- [2023] FWC 925
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issue that arose in this matter was whether the application was properly made under the FW Act, specifically whether it complied with the requirements to pay the prescribed fee or to file a completed waiver form. Section 395 of the FW Act mandates that an application to the Fair Work Commission must be accompanied by the prescribed fee, with regulations providing for the fee amount and circumstances for waiver. Section 587(1) of the FW Act grants the Commission the discretion to dismiss an application if it is not made in accordance with the Act. The Deputy President found that the application was not made in accordance with the Act because it did not include the required fee or waiver form, leading to the dismissal of the application.
In dismissing the application, the Deputy President considered the provisions of the FW Act and the regulations regarding application fees and the process for dismissal. The Deputy President was satisfied that the application was not made in accordance with the Act as required by section 395, and therefore dismissed the application under section 587(1)(a). The Deputy President noted that the Commission had made reasonable attempts to contact Thong to rectify the incomplete application, but Thong did not respond to these communications.
The Fair Work Commission dismissed the application for unfair dismissal made by Cassandra Thong. The dismissal was due to the application not being accompanied by the required fee or a completed waiver form, and therefore not being made in accordance with the Fair Work Act. The Deputy President concluded that the application had no reasonable prospect of success due to the failure to comply with regulatory requirements.
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.