Leo Gwak v Passion8 Building Services Pty Ltd Summary

[2025] FWC 1688

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Leo Gwak
v

Passion8 Building Services Pty Ltd

(U2025/2770)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 17 JUNE 2025

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

On 9 March 2025 Mr Leo Gwak 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 Gwak was incomplete insofar as he did not provide the completed waiver, or payment of the application fee, and did not provide the requested information for questions 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 on the F2 application.

Commission staff attempted to contact Mr Gwak on 13 March, 17 April and 30 April 2025 by telephone, SMS and email.

Section 587 confers a discretion on the Commission to dismiss Mr Gwak’s application if it has not been made in accordance with the Act. Mr Gwak has had ample opportunity to rectify the deficiencies 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 make the following order:

A.The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Leo Gwak on 9 March 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission heard an application from Leo Gwak against Passion8 Building Services Pty Ltd for an unfair dismissal remedy. The application was filed under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The key issue was whether Mr Gwak's application complied with the necessary procedural requirements, specifically whether he had paid the application fee or provided a completed waiver form, and whether he had supplied the requested information for questions 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 on the F2 application form.

The court examined the procedural requirements set out in the Act and noted that Mr Gwak had not provided the completed waiver or paid the application fee, nor had he supplied the requested information for certain questions on the application form. The Commission staff had made multiple attempts to contact Mr Gwak to rectify these deficiencies, but he did not respond. The court considered the discretion under section 587 of the Act to dismiss an application that is not made in accordance with the Act.

Given that Mr Gwak had ample opportunity to rectify the deficiencies in his application and had failed to do so, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the application. The court referred to Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302 and other cited cases to support its decision. The court ordered that the application made by Mr Gwak on 9 March 2025 be dismissed.

Leo Gwak v Passion8 Building Services Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established