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

[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

[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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Kursa Teata versus Nissan Financial Services Pty Ltd, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was tasked with considering an application for an unfair dismissal remedy. The applicant, Teata, sought redress against Nissan Financial Services, alleging that his dismissal from employment was unjust and unfair. This dispute arose from a series of employment-related events that culminated in Teata's termination, which he contested as being without proper cause or process.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court had to determine whether Teata's dismissal was procedurally unfair, substantively unfair, or both. The court also needed to assess whether any mitigating factors present in the case could justify the dismissal or whether it contravened the principles of procedural fairness and substantive justice under the Act.

In delivering its judgment, the court carefully examined the procedural steps taken by Nissan Financial Services prior to and during the dismissal process. It found that while there were some procedural shortcomings, these did not rise to the level of unfairness that would warrant an unfair dismissal remedy. Furthermore, the court considered the substantive fairness of the dismissal and found that it was based on legitimate and non-discriminatory grounds. Consequently, the court determined that Teata's dismissal did not constitute an unfair dismissal within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009. As a result, the application for an unfair dismissal remedy was dismissed.

Kursa Teata v Nissan Financial Services Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established