Daniel Jack v Handy Steel Stocks

[2025] FWC 1315

[2025] FWC 1315

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Daniel Jack
v

Handy Steel Stocks

(U2025/3061)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT O’NEILL MELBOURNE, 13 MAY 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – unpaid application fee – application is not made in accordance with this Act – application dismissed – s.587(1)(a).

1. On 14 March 2025 Mr Daniel Jack made an unfair dismissal application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

1. For the reasons that follow I am satisfied that Mr Jack’s application has not been made in accordance with the Act and that it is appropriate to dismiss the application.

1. Mr Jack’s application was incomplete because he did not pay the required fee[1] or file a completed request to waive the fee.

1. Commission staff attempted to contact Mr Jack on:

·     19 March 2025, by voicemail , SMS and email;

·     24 March 2025, by email;

·     28 March and 7 April 2025, by voicemail.

1. On 2 May 2025, my Chambers emailed Mr Jack requiring a response by 9 May 2025.  He was advised that if no response was received his application may be dismissed under s.587(1)(a) of the Act because it has not been made in accordance with the Act.  No response has been received, the fee has not been paid, and no waiver request has been received.

1. Mr Jack has been given ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in the application. He has not responded to multiple enquiries and warnings that his application may be dismissed.  I am satisfied that Mr Jack’s application should be dismissed. I make the following order:

1. The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Daniel Jack on 14 March 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

[1] Section 395 of the Act.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR787235>