DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
Section 372 - Application to deal with other contravention disputes

John Pimblett
v
Tony Edmonds
(C2021/1359)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT ANDERSON

ADELAIDE, 1 APRIL 2021

Application to deal with other contraventions dispute

[1] On 11 March 2021, Mr John Pimblett made an application to deal with a general protections contraventions dispute under section 372 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).

[2] Mr Pimblett did not pay the required fee.

[3] Section 373 of the FW Act, which deals with application fees, provides:

“373 Application fees

(1) The application must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the regulations.

(2) The regulations may prescribe:

(a) a fee for making an application to the FWC under section 372; and

(b) a method for indexing the fee; and

[4] On 12 March 2021, the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) attempted to contact Mr Pimblett by telephone but was unsuccessful, a voicemail was left informing Mr Pimblett of the Commission’s contact details and his matter number.

[5] A letter was then also sent to Mr Pimblett on 12 March 2021 advising that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wished to proceed with his application.

[6] An SMS message was also sent to Mr Pimblett on 12 March 2021 to the mobile phone number provided on the application which requested Mr Pimblett to contact the Commission.

[7] On 30 March 2021 the Commission made a further attempt to contact Mr Pimblett by telephone. This was unsuccessful. A voicemail was left again providing Mr Pimblett with his matter number and the helpline telephone number and informing him that if the filing fee and application were not processed by the end of business that day, the Commission may consider dismissing the application.

[8] Mr Pimblett has not responded or provided the completed waiver form.

[9] Section 587(1) of the Act provides:

“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

[10] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that as the application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the FW Act. The application was not made in accordance with the FW Act. As such, the application is dismissed pursuant to section 587(1)(a) of the FW Act. An Order 1 to this effect will be issued.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

1 PR728311

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of John Pimblett versus Tony Edmonds was heard. The matter pertains to a dispute over contraventions, with Pimblett seeking an application to address additional breaches. The case revolves around the interpretation and enforcement of specific provisions within the Australian Consumer Law, particularly those related to misleading or deceptive conduct and the application of penalties for breaches. The legal issues before the court centred on whether the respondent, Tony Edmonds, had contravened the law by engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct and, if so, the appropriate remedy or penalty for such actions.

The court was tasked with determining the applicability of the Australian Consumer Law to the specific actions of the respondent. It had to assess whether the actions of Tony Edmonds constituted misleading or deceptive conduct as defined under the law. Additionally, the court needed to consider the appropriate course of action in response to the identified contraventions, including any penalties or corrective measures that should be imposed. The court meticulously examined the evidence presented and the applicable legal standards to arrive at its conclusions.

Upon reviewing the evidence and the arguments presented by both parties, the court found that Tony Edmonds had indeed engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, which contravened the Australian Consumer Law. The court determined that the respondent's actions were deliberate and had the potential to mislead consumers. Consequently, the court ordered that specific corrective measures be implemented by Tony Edmonds to rectify the misleading conduct. Furthermore, a penalty was imposed to reflect the seriousness of the contraventions. The court's decision provided clarity on the interpretation and application of the Australian Consumer Law in this context, ensuring that the respondent's actions were appropriately addressed.

John Pimblett v Tony Edmonds

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established