Cassidy Hilton v The Trustee for Burleigh Pavilion Unit Trust

Case [2025] FWC 1702


[2025] FWC 1702

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Cassidy Hilton
v

The Trustee for Burleigh Pavilion Unit Trust

(U2025/3379)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 18 JUNE 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – application fee not paid or waived – application not made in accordance with the Act - application dismissed.

  1. On 20 March 2025, Ms Cassidy Hilton made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

  1. The application filed by Ms Hilton was incomplete insofar as the application fee was not paid and the Applicant did not provide a fully completed application to have the fee waived.

  1. The waiver application was not properly signed by the Applicant. The Form includes the following declaration:

“I confirm that I have completed all questions in this application.

I ask that the application fee payable on application to the Fair Work Commission be waived because payment of the fee will cause me to suffer serious hardship.

I declare that to the best of my knowledge and belief the information I have given in this form is true and correct.

Note: Giving false or misleading information is a serious offence.

Your signature.”

  1. Commission staff attempted to contact Ms Hilton on 25 March, 1 April, 9 April, 15 April, 16 April, 17 April and 27 May 2025 by telephone, SMS and email.

  1. Ms Hilton provided another waiver form on 16 April 2025, however, it was still incomplete because it was not properly signed by the Applicant.

  1. Section 587 confers a discretion on the Commission to dismiss Ms Hilton’s application if it has not been made in accordance with the Act. Ms Hilton has had ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in her application and has had ample opportunity to show why her application should not be dismissed under s.587 (see generally Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302 at [15]-[16] and the cases cited therein).

  1. I make the following order:

A.The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Ms Cassidy Hilton on 20 March 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR788319>

Details
AGLC
Cassidy Hilton v The Trustee for Burleigh Pavilion Unit Trust [2025] FWC 1702
Case
[2025] FWC 1702
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cassidy Hilton lodged an unfair dismissal claim against The Trustee for Burleigh Pavilion Unit Trust with the Fair Work Commission on 20 March 2025. The application was incomplete as Ms Hilton did not pay the application fee or provide a properly completed fee waiver form. Despite multiple attempts by the Commission to contact Ms Hilton and provide her with opportunities to rectify the deficiencies in her application, she failed to submit a properly signed waiver form.

The key legal issue for the Deputy President to determine was whether the application was in compliance with the Fair Work Act 2009. Section 587 of the Act provides the Commission with discretion to dismiss an application if it has not been made in accordance with the Act. Ms Hilton had multiple opportunities to provide a complete application but failed to do so. The Deputy President found that Ms Hilton had ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in her application and had failed to show why her application should not be dismissed under section 587.

In dismissing the application, the Deputy President relied on Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302 which held that the Commission has discretion to dismiss an application that is not made in accordance with the Act. The Deputy President concluded that Ms Hilton's application was not made in accordance with the Act as it was incomplete and therefore dismissed the application.

The final order of the Deputy President was that the unfair dismissal application made by Ms Cassidy Hilton on 20 March 2025 is 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.