Kristie Lee Holmes v Surevision Global Pty Ltd

Case [2023] FWC 1086


[2023] FWC 1086

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Kristie Lee Holmes
v

Surevision Global Pty Ltd

(U2023/3146)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT O’NEILL

MELBOURNE, 9 MAY 2023

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

  1. On 14 April 2023 Ms Kristie Lee Holmes made an application to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).

  1. The application was incomplete in that Ms Holmes did not pay the required fee or file a completed waiver form.

  1. On 19 April 2023 the Commission emailed correspondence to Ms Holmes’s nominated email address advising that their application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if they wished to proceed with the application. That correspondence also warned that if payment is not made or a waiver form is not received within 7 calendar days the application may be dismissed.

  1. On 20 April, an SMS notification was also sent to Ms Holmes’s nominated telephone number advising of the requirement to action the payment request email from the Fair Work Commission.

  1. On 26 April 2023 the Commission emailed correspondence to Ms Holmes’s nominated email address reminding that their application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if they wished to proceed with the application. That correspondence also warned that if payment is not made or a waiver form is not received, the application may be dismissed.

  1. A final attempt to contact Ms Holmes on their nominated telephone number was made by the Commission on 2 May 2023 to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. A voicemail message was left advising Ms Holmes that payment of the required fee was still outstanding.

  1. To date there has been no response from Ms Holmes, the required fee has not been paid and a completed waiver form has not been received.

  1. Section 395 of the FW Act, which deals with application fees, provides as follows:

395 Application fees

(1) An application to the FWC under this Division 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 this Division; and

(b) a method for indexing the fee; and

(c) the circumstances in which all or part of the fee may be waived or refunded.

  1. Section 587(1) of the FW 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 prospect of success.

  1. 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 s.587(1)(a) of the FW Act.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR761715>

Details
AGLC
Kristie Lee Holmes v Surevision Global Pty Ltd [2023] FWC 1086
Case
[2023] FWC 1086
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kristie Lee Holmes applied to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal against her former employer, Surevision Global Pty Ltd. The application was incomplete as it did not include the necessary fee or a completed waiver form. The Commission notified Holmes multiple times about the requirement to either pay the fee or submit a waiver form within a specified period, but Holmes did not respond. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the application as it was not made in accordance with the Fair Work Act 2009.

The central legal issue in this case was whether Holmes's application for an unfair dismissal remedy could proceed despite not meeting the procedural requirements. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the application could be dismissed under section 587(1)(a) of the FW Act for not being made in accordance with the Act. The procedural requirements, including the necessity of paying the application fee or obtaining a waiver, were established under section 395 of the FW Act. The court also needed to consider whether the dismissal was warranted under section 587(1) of the FW Act, which allows for the dismissal of applications that are not in compliance with the Act or are otherwise inappropriate.

The Fair Work Commission Deputy President O’Neill concluded that the application was not made in accordance with the Fair Work Act because it lacked the prescribed fee or a completed waiver form, both of which are required under section 395. Given that Holmes did not respond to multiple communications from the Commission regarding these deficiencies, the court found that the application did not meet the procedural requirements. Therefore, the application was dismissed under section 587(1)(a) of the FW Act. The court found no merit in proceeding with the application due to its non-compliance with the necessary procedural steps.

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.