| [2023] FWC 381 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Liam Pearson
v
Bond Batteries Pty Ltd
(U2023/630)
| COMMISSIONER BISSETT | MELBOURNE, 16 FEBRUARY 2023 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy
On 25 January 2023 Mr Liam Pearson made an application to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).
The application was incomplete in that Mr Pearson did not pay the required fee or file a completed waiver form.
On 27 January 2023 the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Pearson’s nominated email address advising that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wished to proceed with the application. That correspondence also warned that if payment is not made or a waiver form is not received within 7 calendar days the application may be dismissed.
On 30 January 2023 an SMS notification was sent to Mr Pearson’s nominated telephone number advising of the requirement to action the payment request email from the Fair Work Commission.
On 31 January 2023 the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Pearson’s nominated email address reminding that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wished to proceed with the application. That correspondence also warned that if payment is not made or a waiver form is not received, the application may be dismissed.
A final attempt to contact Mr Pearson on his nominated telephone number was made by the Commission on 2 February 2023 to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. Mr Pearson advised that he was unsure as to whether he would continue with his application. The Commission advised that a completed Form F80 or payment of the lodgement fee would need to be received by close of business Friday 3 February 2023 should he wish to proceed.
To date there has been no response from Mr Pearson, the required fee has not been paid and a completed waiver form has not been received.
Section 395 of the FW Act, which deals with application fees, provides as follows:
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.
Section 587(1) of the FW 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 prospect of success.
I am satisfied that, as the application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the FW Act, the application was not made in accordance with the FW Act. As such, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the FW Act.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
< PR750633>
- AGLC
- Liam Pearson v Bond Batteries Pty Ltd [2023] FWC 381
- Case
- [2023] FWC 381
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether Mr Pearson's application was compliant with the statutory requirements of the Fair Work Act, particularly in relation to the payment of fees and the submission of a completed waiver form. The court examined whether the application could be dismissed under section 587(1)(a) of the Act for non-compliance with the legislative provisions.
In dismissing the application, the Commissioner noted that section 395 of the Fair Work Act mandates that any application to the Fair Work Commission must be accompanied by the prescribed fee, and section 587(1)(a) allows for the dismissal of an application that is not made in accordance with the Act. Despite multiple attempts by the Commission to contact Mr Pearson and provide opportunities to rectify the deficiencies in his application, no fee was paid and no waiver form was submitted. Consequently, the Commissioner concluded that the application did not comply with the Act and was properly dismissed.
No further orders were made by the Commission as the application had been dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.