Daniel Jack v Handy Steel Stocks Summary

[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).

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission considered the case of Daniel Jack v Handy Steel Stocks. Mr Daniel Jack filed an unfair dismissal application against Handy Steel Stocks under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The primary issue was whether Mr Jack's application complied with the procedural requirements of the Act, specifically regarding the payment of the required application fee or a completed request to waive that fee. The court needed to determine if the application could proceed despite the procedural lapse and if any further opportunity should be given to Mr Jack to rectify the deficiency.

The court held that Mr Jack's application was incomplete as he failed to pay the requisite fee or submit a completed fee waiver request. The Commission had made multiple attempts to contact Mr Jack to address this issue, including voicemails, SMS, emails, and a direct email from the Deputy President's Chambers. Despite these efforts, Mr Jack did not respond to any of the communications, nor did he pay the fee or submit a waiver request. The court noted that Mr Jack had ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in his application but chose not to respond to multiple warnings that his application might be dismissed if the fee was not paid or a waiver request submitted.

Consequently, the court concluded that Mr Jack's application had not been made in accordance with the Act and dismissed it under section 587(1)(a). The Deputy President made an order dismissing the application made by Mr Daniel Jack on 14 March 2025.

Daniel Jack v Handy Steel Stocks

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established