Chanel (Nell) Hannan-Moon v The Hoyts Corporation Pty. Limited Summary

[2025] FWC 397

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION and ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Chanel (Nell) Hannan-Moon
v

The Hoyts Corporation Pty. Limited

(U2024/13495)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 11 FEBRUARY 2025

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

On 12 November 2024, Ms Chanel Hannan-Moon made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Ms Hannan-Moon’s application was not made in accordance with the Act (per s.587(1)(a)) because the prescribed fee (per s.395) has not been paid or waived. Section 587 confers a discretion on the Commission to dismiss Ms Hannan-Moon’s application.

Commission staff attempted to contact Ms Hannan-Moon on the following dates:

·   18 November 2024 by email;
·   21 November 2024 by email; and
·   28 November 2024 by telephone.

Ms Hannan-Moon has had ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in their 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).

I have decided to dismiss Ms Hannan-Moon’s unfair dismissal application and make the following order:

1. The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Ms Hannan-Moon on 12 November 2024 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Chanel (Nell) Hannan-Moon filed an unfair dismissal claim against The Hoyts Corporation Pty. Limited with the Fair Work Commission (FWC) on 12 November 2024. The application, made under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009, was not accompanied by the required application fee or a waiver thereof. The FWC, under section 587(1)(a) of the Act, has the discretion to dismiss an application if it is not made in accordance with the Act. This case presents the issue of whether the FWC should exercise its discretion to dismiss the application due to the failure to pay the prescribed fee.

The legal issue at the heart of this case is whether the Commission should dismiss Ms Hannan-Moon’s unfair dismissal application due to non-compliance with the fee requirements as specified in section 395 of the Act. The FWC's discretion to dismiss an application not made in accordance with the Act was considered, along with the opportunities provided to Ms Hannan-Moon to rectify the deficiency in her application. Reference was made to the case of Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302, which outlines the principles applied in similar circumstances. The Deputy President weighed the options available and concluded that the application should be dismissed.

In reaching the decision, the Deputy President noted that Ms Hannan-Moon had been given multiple opportunities to rectify the deficiency in her application by paying the prescribed fee or obtaining a waiver. Despite these opportunities, Ms Hannan-Moon did not take any action to comply with the requirements of the Act. The Deputy President determined that the application should be dismissed, as there was no justifiable reason for the non-compliance and no grounds to waive the fee. The application was dismissed, and the FWC exercised its discretion under section 587 of the Act.

The final order made by the Deputy President was that the application for unfair dismissal made by Ms Hannan-Moon on 12 November 2024 is dismissed. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements of the Fair Work Act and the consequences of failing to do so.

Chanel (Nell) Hannan-Moon v The Hoyts Corporation Pty. Limited

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established