Isaac Longa v Fancee Car Pty Ltd

Case [2023] FWC 1777


[2023] FWC 1777

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.365—General protections

Isaac Longa
v

Fancee Car Pty Ltd

(C2023/2234)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 20 JULY 2023

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal – application dismissed.

  1. On 19 April 2023, Mr Isaac Longa (applicant) has made an application under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act). The applicant alleges that he was dismissed in contravention of the general protection provisions in Part 3-1 of the Act.

  1. The application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) (regulations) or by a completed application for waiver of the lodgement fee (waiver application). The applicant has not responded to correspondence from the Commission alerting him to this deficiency, nor has the deficiency been rectified. I have decided to dismiss the application for the following reasons.

Context

  1. On 24 April 2023, the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Longa’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. The email further stated as follows:

“Please pay the application fee within 7 calendar days (or apply to have the fee waived) so we can progress your case.

If you don’t make payment within 7 days your application may be dismissed.”

  1. An SMS notification was also sent to Mr Longa’s nominated telephone number on 25 April 2023. The SMS advised Mr Longa to take action in compliance with the email from the Commission regarding payment of the application fee.

  1. On 26 April 2023, the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Longa’s nominated email address reminding that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wished to proceed with the application. The correspondence instructed the applicant on how to pay the application fee or make a waiver application and further stated as follows:

“Reminder: You need to pay the application fee (or apply to have the fee waived) or your application may be dismissed.”.

  1. A final attempt to contact Mr Longa on his nominated telephone number was made by the Commission on 2 May 2023 to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. Mr Longa advised that he was unable to make payment over the phone and that he would make payment later that day via the payment request email sent on 24 April 2023. 

  1. To date, the applicant has not paid the lodgement fee or filed a completed waiver application.

Legislative framework

  1. In relation to an application made pursuant to s.365 of the Act, s.367(1) provides that the application “must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the regulations.” At the time the application was made, the regulations prescribed a fee of $77.80. The regulations also allow for an application to be made for the fee to be waived.

  1. Section 587 of the Act provides as follows:

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 prospects of success.

(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773, or an application under section 527F that does not consist solely of an application for a stop sexual harassment order, on the ground that the application:

(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or

(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.

(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.

Consideration and conclusion

  1. The applicant has neither paid the lodgement fee nor sought a fee waiver. Accordingly, the application is not made in accordance with s.367 of the Act.

  1. The applicant has taken no action to address the deficiency despite being notified of it by the Commission on multiple occasions. In these circumstances, I have decided to exercise my discretion to dismiss the application in accordance with s.587(1)(a) of the Act.

  1. The application is dismissed.


VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR764435>

Details
AGLC
Isaac Longa v Fancee Car Pty Ltd [2023] FWC 1777
Case
[2023] FWC 1777
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Isaac Longa has applied to the Fair Work Commission under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for relief in relation to an alleged unfair dismissal by Fancee Car Pty Ltd. Mr Longa claimed that he was dismissed in contravention of the general protection provisions in Part 3-1 of the Act. The application was not accompanied by the requisite lodgement fee or a completed application for waiver of the fee. Despite being notified multiple times by the Commission of this deficiency, Mr Longa has neither paid the fee nor sought a waiver, nor responded to correspondence from the Commission. The Vice President dismissed the application for non-compliance with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 and Fair Work Regulations 2009.

The Vice President had to determine whether the application was made in accordance with the Act and if it was appropriate to dismiss it for being non-compliant. The Act requires that an application under section 365 must be accompanied by the prescribed fee or a completed waiver application. The Fair Work Regulations 2009 prescribed a fee of $77.80 at the time the application was made. The Vice President found that the application was not made in accordance with the Act because it was not accompanied by the requisite fee or waiver application. The Vice President also found that the applicant had failed to take any action to address the deficiency despite multiple notifications from the Commission.

The Vice President concluded that the application was not made in accordance with the Act and dismissed it in accordance with section 587(1)(a) of the Act. The Vice President noted that despite the applicant’s failure to comply with the Act, the Act does not permit dismissal of an application under section 365 on the ground that it is frivolous or vexatious or has no reasonable prospects of success. However, the Vice President found that the application was not made in accordance with the Act and exercised their discretion to dismiss the application.

The application is dismissed.

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.