Dominic McSweeney v Colliers International (Brisbane) Pty Ltd

Case [2022] FWC 1717


[2022] FWC 1717

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Dominic McSweeney
v

Colliers International (Brisbane) Pty Ltd

(U2022/6293)

COMMISSIONER o’neill

MELBOURNE, 5 JULY 2022

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – unpaid application – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.

  1. On 14 June 2022 Dominic McSweeney 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 McSweeney did not pay the required fee or file a completed waiver form.

  1. On 15 June 2022 the Commission attempted to contact Mr McSweeney on his nominated telephone number to discuss payment of the required fee however, Mr McSweeney did not answer the call. A voicemail to text message was left requesting he contact the Commission.

  1. Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr McSweeney’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 was not made or a waiver form was not received within 14 days, the application may be dismissed.

  1. A final attempt to contact Mr McSweeney was made by the Commission on 27 June 2022 to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. Mr McSweeney advised that he would call back at the end of the day to pay the application fee. Mr McSweeney was informed that if payment was not made by close of business 28 June 2022 the matter may be dismissed.

  1. To date there has been no further response from Mr McSweeney, 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:

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. Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, 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. An order[1] to this effect will be issued with this decision.

COMMISSIONER


[1] PR743334.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR743333>

Details
AGLC
Dominic McSweeney v Colliers International (Brisbane) Pty Ltd [2022] FWC 1717
Case
[2022] FWC 1717
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dominic McSweeney versus Colliers International (Brisbane) Pty Ltd was brought before the Fair Work Commission. Dominic McSweeney filed an application for unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. However, the application was incomplete, as McSweeney had not paid the required fee nor filed a completed waiver form. Despite attempts by the Commission to contact McSweeney to rectify this, the application remained incomplete, leading to the application being dismissed under section 587 of the Fair Work Act.

The key legal issues addressed by the Commission were whether the application was made in accordance with the Act, and if it had any reasonable prospect of success. Section 395 of the Fair Work Act stipulates that any application to the Fair Work Commission must be accompanied by the prescribed fee. Given that McSweeney’s application was not accompanied by the required fee, it did not comply with the Act. Furthermore, section 587 allows the Commission to dismiss an application if it is not made in accordance with the Act, which was the case here.

The Commission found that since McSweeney’s application did not comply with the Act by not including the required fee, it was dismissed under section 587(1)(a). The Commission was satisfied that the application had no reasonable prospect of success, and the lack of response from McSweeney further supported this decision. Consequently, the Commission issued an order dismissing the application and will provide a formal written order to this effect.

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.