Daniel Kiberet v Melbourne Health

Case [2023] FWC 254


[2023] FWC 254

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Daniel Kiberet
v

Melbourne Health

(U2023/370)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 30 JANUARY 2023

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

  1. On 12 January 2023 Mr Daniel Kiberet 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).

  1. The application was incomplete in that Mr Kiberet did not pay the required fee or file a completed waiver form.

  1. On 16 January 2023 the Commission sent correspondence to Mr Kiberet’s nominated email address advising that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he 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.

  1. On 17 January 2023 an SMS notification was sent to Mr Kiberet’s nominated telephone number advising of the requirement to action the payment request email from the Fair Work Commission.

  1. On 19 January 2023 the Commission sent correspondence to Mr Kiberet’s nominated email address reminding him that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he 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.

  1. A final attempt to contact Mr Kiberet on his nominated telephone number was made by the Commission on 23 January 2023 to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. Mr Kiberet advised that he had been in contact with Melbourne Health and wanted to delay paying the filing fee until discussions had been finalised. The Commission explained that the due date for the payment of the filing fee could not be extended. Mr Kiberet indicated that he would seek independent advice and contact the Commission to discuss the outcome.

  1. To date there has been no response from Mr Kiberet, the required fee has not been paid and a completed waiver form has not been received.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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

<PR750063>

Details
AGLC
Daniel Kiberet v Melbourne Health [2023] FWC 254
Case
[2023] FWC 254
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Daniel Kiberet versus Melbourne Health involved an application for unfair dismissal remedy under the Fair Work Act 2009. Mr Kiberet applied to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, but the application was incomplete as it lacked the required fee or a completed waiver form. Melbourne Health did not contest the application itself but raised the issue of the incomplete application process. The matter was brought before Commissioner Bissett at the Fair Work Commission.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether Mr Kiberet's application for unfair dismissal was valid despite being incomplete. This hinged on whether the absence of the required fee or a waiver form rendered the application non-compliant with the Fair Work Act. The Commission had to determine whether the application could proceed under these circumstances and whether it was appropriate to dismiss the application under section 587(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act.

Commissioner Bissett concluded that the application was not made in accordance with the Fair Work Act due to the missing fee or waiver form, as required by section 395. The Commissioner found that the application was incomplete and thus not compliant with the legislative requirements. Despite multiple reminders and attempts to contact Mr Kiberet to rectify the situation, no action was taken to address the deficiencies. Consequently, the Commissioner dismissed the application pursuant to section 587(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act, as it did not meet the statutory prerequisites for lodging.

No further orders were made by the Commission, as the dismissal of the application precluded any consideration of the merits of the unfair dismissal claim.

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.