Dennis Donald Stokes Summary

[2025] FWC 1982

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.372—General protections

Dennis Donald Stokes

(C2025/3749)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 11 JULY 2025

Application to deal with contraventions not involving dismissal – application fee not paid or waived – application not made in accordance with the Act – application dismissed.

On 8 May 2025 Mr Dennis Donald Stokes made a general protections application to the Fair Work Commission under s.372 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Mr Stokes’ application was not made in accordance with the Act (per s.587(1)(a)) because the prescribed fee (per s.373) has not been paid or waived. Section 587(1)(a) allows the Commission to dismiss Mr Stokes’ application without conducting a hearing, so long as the applicant has been afforded procedural fairness.

Mr Stokes has been given ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in the application and has also had ample opportunity to show why their application should not be dismissed under s.587 (see generally Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302 at [15]-[16] and the cases cited therein).

I have decided to dismiss Mr Stokes’ general protections claim using the power available under s.587(1)(a) and make the following order:

The application under s.372 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Dennis Donald Stokes on 8 May 2025 is dismissed

DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dennis Donald Stokes made a general protections application to the Fair Work Commission on 8 May 2025, seeking redress under section 372 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was dismissed by Deputy President Easton due to non-compliance with the Act, specifically the failure to pay or waive the prescribed application fee as required by section 373. Section 587(1)(a) of the Act provides the Commission with the discretion to dismiss applications that do not adhere to the prescribed formalities, provided that the applicant is afforded procedural fairness.

The legal issue before Deputy President Easton was whether the application could be dismissed without a hearing due to the non-payment of the application fee. The Deputy President considered relevant case law, notably Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge, which established the principle that applicants must be given an opportunity to rectify procedural deficiencies and to argue against dismissal. Mr Stokes was afforded multiple opportunities to pay the fee or demonstrate why the application should not be dismissed, but failed to do so.

In light of the non-compliance and the opportunities provided to rectify the deficiency, Deputy President Easton dismissed the application under section 587(1)(a). The Deputy President concluded that procedural fairness had been observed in the process, allowing for the dismissal without a hearing. The dismissal was formalised with an order that the general protections application made by Mr Stokes on 8 May 2025 be dismissed.

Dennis Donald Stokes

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established