Luke Bray v Daikin Australia Pty Ltd

[2025] FWC 565

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION and ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Luke Bray
v

Daikin Australia Pty Ltd

(U2024/14247)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 24 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 27 November 2024, Mr Luke Bray 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 Bray was incomplete insofar as he did not pay the application fee or apply for a waiver of the fee.

Commission staff attempted to contact Mr Bray on December 3, 5, 12, 17, 18, 30 and 31 by telephone, SMS and/or email.

Mr Bray 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 Bray’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 Luke Bray on 27 November 2024 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission was asked to consider an unfair dismissal application made by Mr Luke Bray against Daikin Australia Pty Ltd. Mr Bray alleged unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was incomplete as Mr Bray did not pay the requisite application fee nor did he apply for a waiver of the fee. Despite multiple attempts by Commission staff to contact Mr Bray to rectify the deficiency, he did not address the incomplete application. Mr Bray was given sufficient opportunity to rectify the deficiency and to show why his application should not be dismissed. The court considered whether it should dismiss the application for non-compliance with the requirements of the Act.

In dismissing the application, Deputy President Easton noted that the application did not meet the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was not made in accordance with the Act due to the unpaid fee and the absence of a waiver application. The court referred to previous cases, including Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd, to support its decision. The Deputy President found that Mr Bray had ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in his application but failed to do so. Therefore, the application was dismissed.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed Mr Bray's unfair dismissal application under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 due to the incomplete nature of the application. The court determined that the application was not made in accordance with the Act because the application fee was not paid or waived. Mr Bray was given multiple opportunities to rectify the deficiency but did not take any action. The court's decision was based on the requirement that applications be made in accordance with the Act and the precedent set by Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd.

The Fair Work Commission made the following order: 1. The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Luke Bray on 27 November 2024 is dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established