Ian Wallace v C.M Perrett & H.E Perrett & R.J Perrett & T.J Perrett Summary

[2025] FWC 1784

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Ian Wallace
v

C.M Perrett & H.E Perrett & R.J Perrett & T.J Perrett

(U2025/5289)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT O’NEILL

MELBOURNE, 24 JUNE 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 2 May 2025, Mr Ian Wallace 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 Wallace’s application has not been made in accordance with the Act and that it is appropriate to dismiss the application.

Mr Wallace’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 Wallace on:
·     2 May 2025, by mail;
·     2 May 2025, by SMS; and on
·     19 May 2025, by phone and voicemail.
On 5 June 2025, my Chambers emailed Mr Wallace requiring a response by 12 June 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 Wallace 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 Wallace’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 Ian Wallace on 2 May 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

[1] Section 395 of the Act.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission case of Ian Wallace v C.M Perrett & H.E Perrett & R.J Perrett & T.J Perrett, Deputy President O'Neill dismissed an application for unfair dismissal brought by Mr Ian Wallace against the named respondents. The dispute centred on the incomplete nature of Mr Wallace's application, primarily due to the non-payment of the required application fee and the absence of a completed fee waiver request. Despite multiple attempts by the Commission to contact Mr Wallace, including emails and phone calls, he failed to respond or rectify the deficiencies in his application.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Mr Wallace's application complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the application was made in accordance with the Act, as mandated by section 587(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The court considered Mr Wallace's failure to respond to communications and warnings about the potential dismissal of his application due to non-compliance. The court was required to balance Mr Wallace's rights to pursue a claim of unfair dismissal against the procedural requirements set out in the Act.

Deputy President O'Neill found that Mr Wallace's application did not comply with the Act because the necessary fee had not been paid, nor had a completed fee waiver request been submitted. The court noted that Mr Wallace had been given multiple opportunities to address the deficiencies in his application but had failed to do so. Consequently, the court dismissed the application under section 587(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The court's decision was based on the clear procedural requirements of the Act and Mr Wallace's failure to meet these requirements despite numerous warnings and opportunities to do so.

In light of the dismissal of Mr Wallace's application, Deputy President O'Neill made an order dismissing the unfair dismissal application. This order formally concludes the proceedings brought by Mr Ian Wallace against the named respondents.

Ian Wallace v C.M Perrett & H.E Perrett & R.J Perrett & T.J Perrett

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established