Charlie Ludwig v di Lusso Estate T/A di Lusso Estate

[2016] FWC 1869

[2016] FWC 1869

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Charlie Ludwig
v
di Lusso Estate T/A di Lusso Estate
(U2016/4033)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY MELBOURNE, 24 MARCH 2016

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 21 January 2016, Ms Charlie Ludwig made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Ms Ludwig did not pay the required fee.

[3] On 22 February 2016, Ms Ludwig was advised by emailed correspondence that her application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if she wished to proceed with her application. Upon receipt of the correspondence, Ms Ludwig contacted the Commission. Following this contact, she was sent a waiver application form.

[4] Attempts to follow up with Ms Ludwig by telephone were made by the Commission on 29 February, 8 and 9 March 2016.

[5] Section 395 of the Act, which deals with application fees, provides:

“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.”

[6] On 11 March 2016, the Commission spoke with Ms Ludwig about payment of the filing fee and an email confirming that conversation was sent to Ms Ludwig. The emailed correspondence provided Ms Ludwig with a further seven days in which to pay the filing fee or lodge a completed waiver application.

[7] No response was received from Ms Ludwig and payment of the required fee has not been made.

[8] Section 587(1) of the 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 prospects of success.”

[9] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that as the application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the Act, the application was not made in accordance with the Act. As such, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the Act. An Order to this effect will be issued shortly.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR578339>