Leighton Barr v The Youth Insearch Foundation Summary

[2025] FWC 578

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION and ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Leighton Barr
v

The Youth Insearch Foundation

(U2025/128)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 25 FEBRUARY 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – application fee not paid or waived – application not made in accordance with the Act - application dismissed.

On 6 January 2025, Mr Leighton Barr made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

The application filed by Mr Barr was not made in accordance with the Act (per s.587(1)(a)) because the prescribed fee (per s.395) has not been paid or waived. Section 587 confers a discretion on the Commission to dismiss Mr Barr’s application.

Commission staff attempted to contact Mr Barr on January 6, 7, 8, and 20 by email, telephone and express post.:

Mr Barr has had ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in his application and has had ample opportunity to show why his application should not be dismissed under s.587 (see generally Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302 at [15]-[16] and the cases cited therein).

I have decided to dismiss Mr Barr’s unfair dismissal application and make the following order:

1. The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Leighton Barr on 6 January 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Leighton Barr, an employee, filed an unfair dismissal application against The Youth Insearch Foundation with the Fair Work Commission (FWC) on 6 January 2025. The application, made under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009, sought relief for an alleged unfair dismissal. However, the application was dismissed due to the failure to pay the required application fee or obtain a waiver, as stipulated by section 395 of the Act. This procedural oversight meant that the application did not comply with the requirements of section 587(1)(a) of the Act, granting the FWC discretion to dismiss the application.

The legal issue before the Deputy President was whether the application could be dismissed for non-compliance with the fee requirement under section 587(1)(a). The decision hinged on whether Mr Barr had been given a reasonable opportunity to rectify the deficiency in his application. Multiple attempts by the FWC staff to contact Mr Barr by various means, including email, telephone, and express post, were unsuccessful in prompting a response. The Deputy President noted that Mr Barr had ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency and demonstrate why the application should not be dismissed, referencing Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge.

The Deputy President concluded that Mr Barr’s application was not made in accordance with the Act due to the outstanding fee issue, and therefore, the application was dismissed. The decision was based on the lack of response from Mr Barr despite the multiple opportunities provided to him to address the procedural requirement. The Deputy President made the order dismissing the application under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009, effective from the date of the decision.

Leighton Barr v The Youth Insearch Foundation

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established