Lalit Sharma v Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd trading as Uber Summary

[2025] FWC 2411

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.536LU - Application for an unfair deactivation remedy

Lalit Sharma
v

Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd trading as Uber

(UDE2025/153)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAUNDERS

NEWCASTLE, 18 AUGUST 2025

Application for an unfair deactivation remedy – application dismissed

Mr Lalit Sharma (Applicant) has made an application under s 536LU of the Fair Work Act 2009 alleging that he was unfairly deactivated by Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd trading as Uber. The application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the regulations. The Applicant has not responded to correspondence from the Commission alerting him to the deficiency, nor has he rectified the deficiency. I have decided to dismiss the application under s 587 of the Act for the following reasons.

The application was lodged on 10 July 2025. On 22 July 2025, the Commission sent to the Applicant a letter noting that the application had been made without payment of the required fee. The letter stated that the Applicant could apply for the fee to be waived. On 25 July 2025, the Commission wrote to the Applicant a second time, noting that the lodgement fee remained unpaid and that if it was not paid the matter may be dismissed. On 7 August 2025, the Commission wrote to the Applicant a third time, noting that the lodgement fee had not been paid. The correspondence stated that if the application fee was not paid or the fee waived within 7 days, the application would be dismissed.

The Applicant has not paid the lodgement fee or submitted a completed waiver application. He has not made any submissions as to why his application should not be dismissed.

Section 587 of the 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 prospects of success.

…

(2) Despite paragraphs (1) (b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:

(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or

(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.

(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.”

Section 536LV(1) states that an application to the FWC under this Division must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the regulations. At the time the application was made, the regulations prescribed a fee of $89.70. The regulations also allow for an application to be made for the fee to be waived. The Applicant has neither paid the fee nor applied for the fee to be waived. The unfair deactivation application made by the Applicant did not, at the time it was lodged, and still does not, comply with s 536LV of the Act. This deficiency engages s 587(1)(a): the application was not made in accordance with the Act.

The Commission has a discretion to dismiss the application under s 587. I have decided to exercise this discretion because it is fair and reasonable to do so. The Applicant was notified on multiple occasions that the application was not accompanied by the required fee and no action was taken to address the deficiency within a reasonable time. I dismiss the application in accordance with s 587(1)(a) of the Act.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Lalit Sharma, an individual, has applied to the Fair Work Commission under section 536LU of the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking relief for an alleged unfair deactivation by Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd trading as Uber. The application was lodged without the requisite fee, and despite multiple correspondences from the Commission drawing the Applicant’s attention to this deficiency, no action has been taken to rectify the issue. Consequently, the application has been dismissed by the Deputy President of the Fair Work Commission.

The legal issues before the Court were primarily whether the application complied with the statutory requirements under section 536LV of the Fair Work Act, which mandates that any application to the Commission must be accompanied by a prescribed fee. Given that Mr Sharma's application did not meet this requirement, the central issue was whether the application could be dismissed for non-compliance and whether it had any reasonable prospects of success. The Court was required to determine if the dismissal of the application was warranted under section 587 of the Act.

The Deputy President, in dismissing the application, noted that the statutory requirement for the payment of a prescribed fee at the time of lodgement was not met. Despite multiple notices from the Commission, the Applicant failed to either pay the fee or apply for a waiver. The Deputy President held that the application did not comply with the Act as it was not accompanied by the required fee. Under section 587(1)(a), the application could be dismissed as it was not made in accordance with the Act. The Deputy President found it fair and reasonable to exercise the discretion to dismiss the application, given the Applicant's failure to address the fee issue within a reasonable time after multiple notices from the Commission.

The application was dismissed in accordance with section 587(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act, and no further action will be taken on this application. The decision was communicated to the Applicant, and the matter is concluded.

Lalit Sharma v Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd trading as Uber

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established