Janelle Parker v The Trustee for JL&P Unit Trust

[2025] FWC 571

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION and ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Janelle Parker
v

The Trustee For JL&P Unit Trust

(U2025/29)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 25 FEBRUARY 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 January 2025, Ms Janelle Parker 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 Parker 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. Section 587 confers a discretion on the Commission to dismiss Ms Parker’s application.

Commission staff attempted to contact Ms Parker on the following dates:

·   3 January 2025 by telephone;
·   7 January 2025 by telephone, SMS and email;
·   14 January 2025 by telephone; and
·   16 January 2025 by telephone.

Ms Parker has had ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency 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 have decided to dismiss Ms Parker’s unfair dismissal application and make the following order:

1. The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Ms Janelle Parker on 2 January 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Janelle Parker, sought an unfair dismissal remedy against The Trustee for JL&P Unit Trust, a matter which was heard by the Fair Work Commission. The application was filed under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking relief for an alleged unfair dismissal. The dispute arose when Ms Parker was terminated from her employment, and she contested the fairness of that termination.

The central legal issue in this case was whether Ms Parker's application for an unfair dismissal remedy complied with the statutory requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the application fee had been paid or waived, as required by section 395 of the Act. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the application was made in accordance with section 587(1)(a) of the Act and whether there were grounds to exercise the Commission's discretion to dismiss the application under section 587.

The Deputy President, Easton, concluded that the application was not made in accordance with the Act because the prescribed fee had not been paid or waived. Despite multiple attempts by Commission staff to contact Ms Parker and provide her with the opportunity to rectify this deficiency, she failed to do so. The court referenced previous cases, such as Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge, to support the decision that Ms Parker had ample opportunity to address the issue and to demonstrate why her application should not be dismissed. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion under section 587 to dismiss Ms Parker's unfair dismissal application.

The final order of the court was that the unfair dismissal application made by Ms Janelle Parker on 2 January 2025 was dismissed. This decision effectively concluded Ms Parker's attempt to seek a remedy for her alleged unfair dismissal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established