| [2023] FWC 861 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Coral Rae Neowhouse
v
Kieran O’hara And Greg Palmers From Palmers Group Pty Ltd
(U2023/2140)
| COMMISSIONER BISSETT | MELBOURNE, 11 APRIL 2023 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy
On 15 March 2023 Coral Rae Neowhouse 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 Neowhouse did not pay the required fee or file a completed waiver form.
On 20 March 2023 the Commission sent correspondence to Ms Neowhouse’s nominated email address advising that her application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if they 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 21 March 2023 an SMS notification was also sent to Ms Neowhouse’s nominated telephone number advising of the requirement to action the payment request email from the Fair Work Commission.
On 23 March 2023 the Commission emailed correspondence to Ms Neowhouse’s nominated email address reminding her 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, the application may be dismissed.
A final attempt to contact Ms Neowhouse on her nominated telephone number was made by the Commission on 28 March 2023 to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. The call was not answered. A voicemail message was left advising Ms Neowhouse that payment of the required fee was still outstanding.
To date there has been no response from Ms Neowhouse, 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.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR760992>
- AGLC
- Coral Rae Neowhouse v Kieran O'hara and Greg Palmers from Palmers Group Pty Ltd [2023] FWC 861
- Case
- [2023] FWC 861
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the FWC was whether the application could be dismissed due to non-compliance with the FW Act's procedural requirements. The FWC needed to determine whether the application was made in accordance with the FW Act, and if not, whether it could be dismissed under s.587(1)(a) of the FW Act. The FWC also considered whether the application had any reasonable prospect of success.
The FWC found that the application did not comply with the requirements of s.395 of the FW Act, which mandates that applications to the FWC must be accompanied by the prescribed fee unless a waiver is granted. The Commission concluded that the application was not made in accordance with the FW Act, and therefore, it was dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the FW Act. The FWC noted that there had been multiple attempts to contact Ms Neowhouse to rectify the procedural deficiencies, but she had not responded.
The FWC dismissed the application for unfair dismissal due to non-compliance with the procedural requirements of the FW Act. The Commission was satisfied that the application was not made in accordance with the Act, and it had no reasonable prospect of success. The application was dismissed under s.587(1)(a) of the FW Act.
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.