Kara Worthington v Lrh Summary

[2025] FWC 1783

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Kara Worthington
v

Lrh

(U2025/4938)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT O’NEILL

MELBOURNE, 24 JUNE 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – unpaid application fee – application is not made in accordance with this Act – application dismissed – s.587(1)(a).

On 22 April 2025, Mrs Kara Worthington made an unfair dismissal application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

For the reasons that follow I am satisfied that Mrs Worthington’s application has not been made in accordance with the Act and that it is appropriate to dismiss the application.

Ms Worthington’s application was incomplete because she did not pay the required fee[1] or file a completed request to waive the fee.

Commission staff attempted to contact Ms Worthington on:
·     28 April 2025, by email;
·     29 April 2025, by SMS;
·     9 May 2025, by phone call, which was answered by Mrs Worthington. Ms Worthington said she would provide payment or a request to waive the fee by 13 May 2025.
·     15 May 2025, by phone call and voicemail.
On 5 June 2025, my Chambers emailed Mrs Worthington requiring a response by 12 June 2025. She was advised that if no response was received, her application may be dismissed under s.587(1)(a) of the Act because it has not been made in accordance with the Act. No response has been received, the fee has not been paid, and no waiver request has been received.

Mrs Worthington has been given ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in the application. She has not responded to multiple enquiries and warnings that her application may be dismissed. I am satisfied that Mrs Worthington’s application should be dismissed. I make the following order:

1. The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mrs Kara Worthington on 22 April 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

[1] Section 395 of the Act.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kara Worthington sought relief from the Fair Work Commission under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009, alleging unfair dismissal. Lrh, Worthington's employer, opposed the application. The central issue before the Commission was whether Worthington's application complied with the statutory requirements of the Act, particularly regarding the payment of an application fee or a request to waive such fee.

The Commission was required to determine if Worthington's failure to pay the application fee or to file a waiver request rendered her application non-compliant with the Act. Furthermore, it was necessary to consider whether Worthington's repeated failures to respond to attempts by the Commission to rectify this deficiency warranted the dismissal of her application under section 587(1)(a) of the Act.

Deputy President O’Neill found that Worthington had been provided multiple opportunities to rectify the deficiency in her application. Despite warnings and reminders, she did not pay the application fee or submit a request to waive the fee. The Commission's attempts to contact Worthington, including emails, SMS, and phone calls, went unanswered until the final warning on 5 June 2025. Given the clear non-compliance with the Act and the lack of response to warnings, Deputy President O’Neill was satisfied that the application should be dismissed.

The Fair Work Commission ordered the dismissal of Kara Worthington's application for unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009, due to non-compliance with the statutory requirements regarding the application fee.

Kara Worthington v Lrh

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established