Ibrahim Adeeb v Kuga Australia Pty Ltd Summary

[2025] FWC 2701

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Ibrahim Adeeb
v

Kuga Australia Pty Ltd

(U2025/9863)

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 6 June 2025 Mr Ibrahim Adeeb made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Mr Adeeb’s application was not made in accordance with the Act (per s.587(1)(a)) because the prescribed fee (per s.395) has not been paid or waived.

Commission staff attempted to contact Mr Adeeb on 17 June, 23 June and 31 July 2025 by telephone, SMS and email.

Mr Adeeb responded on 23 June 2025 and advised Commission staff that he would pay online.

To date Mr Adeeb has not made payment of the application fee.

Section 587 confers a discretion on the Commission to dismiss Mr Adeeb application if it has not been made in accordance with the Act. Mr Adeeb has had ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in his application and has had ample opportunity to show why his 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 Mr Ibrahim Adeeb on 6 June 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ibrahim Adeeb filed an unfair dismissal application against Kuga Australia Pty Ltd with the Fair Work Commission. The application, made under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009, was not in accordance with the Act as the prescribed application fee had not been paid or waived. The Commission attempted to contact Mr. Adeeb multiple times to address this issue, but despite his assurance to pay the fee online, no payment was received. This non-compliance led to the Deputy President having to decide whether to dismiss the application under section 587 of the Act.

The legal issue before the court was whether Mr. Adeeb's application should be dismissed for not complying with the procedural requirement of paying the application fee. The Act provides a discretion to the Commission to dismiss applications that are not made in accordance with its provisions. The court considered the precedent in Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge, which highlighted the importance of adhering to the Act's requirements and the opportunity given to applicants to rectify procedural deficiencies.

The Deputy President found that Mr. Adeeb had been given ample opportunity to pay the fee and rectify the deficiency in his application but had failed to do so. The court also noted that Mr. Adeeb had not provided any justification for why his application should not be dismissed. Consequently, the application was dismissed. The court's decision was based on the clear statutory requirement to pay the application fee and the applicant's failure to comply despite multiple reminders.

Ibrahim Adeeb v Kuga Australia Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established