Kursa Teata v Nissan Financial Services Pty Ltd

[2018] FWC 7510

[2018] FWC 7510

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Kursa Teata
v
Nissan Financial Services Pty Ltd
(U2018/10940)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY MELBOURNE, 11 DECEMBER 2018

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 23 October 2018, Miss Kursa Teata made an application to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Miss Teata did not pay the required fee.

[3] Following receipt of the application, the Commission attempted to telephone Miss Teata in relation to the payment of the required fee. This was unsuccessful and two voicemail messages were left. Email correspondence was subsequently sent to Miss Teata’s nominated email address advising that if she did not pay the application fee or make an application to have the fee waived within 14 days, her application may be dismissed.

[4] On 24 October 2018, Miss Teata’s representative provided notice that they no longer acted for her.

[5] On 8 and 21 November 2018, further attempts to telephone Miss Teata were made by the Commission in relation to the payment of the required fee. On both occasions, Miss Teata could not be contacted and voicemails were left seeking her return call.

[6] To date, Miss Teata has not responded to the Commission’s correspondence.

[7] Section 395 of the Act, which deals with application fees, provides:

“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.”

[8] 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

(c) the application has no reasonable prospects of success.”

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

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR703036>