Elizabeth Knauseder v Graham PMGT Pty Ltd

[2025] FWC 2700

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Elizabeth Knauseder
v

Graham PMGT Pty Ltd

(U2025/9670)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 11 SEPTEMBER 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – application fee not paid or waived – application not made in accordance with the Act - application dismissed.

On 9 June 2025, Ms Elizabeth Knauseder made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

The application filed by Ms Knauseder was incomplete because she did not pay the application fee or apply for a waiver of the fee. Ms Knauseder’s claim also appeared to have been filed prematurely. The information provided in the application suggested that the dismissal had not yet taken effect on the date the application was made.

On 11 June 2025 Ms Amanda Holmström filed by email a Form F53 advising that Ms Nicole Thompson, who is a “Business Manager” for a business called Law on Lydiard, would be seeking permission to appear for Ms Knauseder as a lawyer or paid agent. Ms Holmström’s email footer says she is an “Industrial Relations Consultant” for “AUSTRALIAN DISMISSAL SERVICES in association with LAW ON LYDIARD”.

Commission staff attempted to contact Ms Knauseder and Ms Thompson on 13 June, 16 June, 27 June and 1 July 2025 by telephone, SMS and email.

Commission staff spoke with Ms Knauseder on 27 June 2025 about her unfair dismissal claim being possibly a premature application, to which she responded that she would discuss this with her representative.

There has been no further response from Ms Knauseder or her representative(s). Neither AUSTRALIAN DISMISSAL SERVICES, or LAW ON LYDIARD, or Ms Thompson have provided any identifiable assistance to Ms Knauseder or the Fair Work Commission.

Section 587 confers a discretion on the Commission to dismiss Ms Knauseder’s application if it has not been made in accordance with the Act. Ms Knauseder has had ample opportunity to rectify the deficiencies in her application and has had ample opportunity to show why her 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 make the following order:

A.The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Ms Elizabeth Knauseder on 9 June 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Elizabeth Knauseder filed an unfair dismissal claim with the Fair Work Commission against Graham PMGT Pty Ltd under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The claim was filed on 9 June 2025, but was incomplete as Knauseder had not paid the application fee or applied for a waiver of the fee. Furthermore, the dismissal had not yet taken effect at the time the claim was filed. Knauseder subsequently sought to have a representative appear on her behalf, but the representative did not provide any assistance to Knauseder or the Commission. The Commission attempted to contact Knauseder and her representative multiple times, but there was no further response.

The legal issues in this case were whether the Commission had discretion to dismiss Knauseder's application for non-compliance with the Act, and whether Knauseder had been given sufficient opportunity to rectify the deficiencies in her application. The Court found that section 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009 gave the Commission discretion to dismiss an application if it had not been made in accordance with the Act. The Court also found that Knauseder had been given ample opportunity to rectify the deficiencies in her application and to show why her application should not be dismissed under section 587.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed Knauseder's application for unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Court found that Knauseder had not complied with the requirements of the Act in filing her application, and that she had been given ample opportunity to rectify the deficiencies in her application and to show why her application should not be dismissed under section 587. The Court also found that Knauseder's representative had not provided any identifiable assistance to Knauseder or the Commission. As a result, the Court dismissed Knauseder's application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established