Jake-Taylor Nugent v Bob Jane Corporation Pty Ltd

[2025] FWC 1704

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Jake-Taylor Nugent
v

Bob Jane Corporation Pty Ltd

(U2025/4062)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 18 JUNE 2025

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

On 2 April 2025, Mr Jake-Taylor Nugent made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

The application filed by Mr Nugent was incomplete insofar as he did not pay the required application fee or provide the completed application to waiver the fee.

Commission staff attempted to contact Mr Nugent on 7 April, 11 April, 14 April and 13 May 2025 by telephone, SMS and email.

Section 587 confers a discretion on the Commission to dismiss Mr Nugent’s application if it has not been made in accordance with the Act. Mr Nugent 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 Jake-Taylor Nugent on 2 April 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission, led by Deputy President Easton, dismissed an unfair dismissal application brought by Jake-Taylor Nugent against Bob Jane Corporation Pty Ltd. Nugent's application, made on 2 April 2025, alleged unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. However, the application was incomplete as Nugent failed to pay the required application fee or complete the necessary waiver form. Multiple attempts by Commission staff to contact Nugent via telephone, SMS, and email on 7 April, 11 April, 14 April, and 13 May 2025 to rectify this deficiency went unanswered. The Commission's discretion to dismiss an application not made in accordance with the Act is supported by section 587, which allows for such dismissal if the application is incomplete. Nugent had sufficient opportunities to address the deficiencies in his application but did not take advantage of these opportunities.

The legal issue before the court was whether the application should be dismissed for non-compliance with the Act, specifically section 587, which provides the Commission with the discretion to dismiss applications not made in accordance with the Act. The precedent of Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302, which outlines the conditions under which an application may be dismissed, was relevant here. The Deputy President found that Nugent's application was indeed not made in accordance with the Act and that Nugent had ample opportunity to rectify this but failed to do so. This led to the conclusion that the application should be dismissed.

In summary, the Fair Work Commission found that Nugent's application for unfair dismissal was not made in accordance with the Act due to the failure to pay the application fee or complete a waiver form. Despite multiple opportunities to rectify this deficiency, Nugent did not take any action. The Commission exercised its discretion under section 587 to dismiss the application, citing the precedent of Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge. The court ordered that Nugent's application under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009, made on 2 April 2025, be dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established