Michelle McAtackney v The Trustee for the Johnson Property Trust Summary

[2025] FWC 550

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION and ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Michelle McAtackney
v

The Trustee for The Johnson Property Trust

(U2024/13485)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 21 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 9 November 2024, Mrs Michelle McAtackney made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

The application filed by Mrs McAtackney was incomplete insofar as she did not specifiy the date she commenced employment and she did not pay the application fee or apply for the fee to be waived.

Commission staff attempted to contact Mrs McAtackney on November 15, 19 and 28, 2024.

Mrs McAtackney has had ample opportunity to rectify the deficiencies in her application and has had ample opportunity to show why her 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 Mrs McAtackney’s unfair dismissal application and make the following order:

1. The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mrs Michelle McAtackney on 9 November 2024 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Michelle McAtackney applied to the Fair Work Commission seeking a remedy for an alleged unfair dismissal by The Trustee for The Johnson Property Trust. The application was lodged under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 but was incomplete as it did not include the date of commencement of her employment and did not address the application fee or a waiver request. The Deputy President of the Fair Work Commission, Easton, presided over this case.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Mrs McAtackney's application could be considered despite its deficiencies. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the application was made in accordance with the statutory requirements and whether it could be dismissed due to these inadequacies. The court also had to assess whether Mrs McAtackney had an opportunity to rectify these deficiencies and whether there were any grounds to waive the application fee.

The Deputy President concluded that the application did not meet the statutory requirements because it failed to specify the commencement date of employment and did not address the application fee or a waiver request. Despite multiple attempts by Commission staff to contact Mrs McAtackney and provide her with an opportunity to rectify these deficiencies, she did not respond. The court found that Mrs McAtackney had ample opportunity to show why her application should not be dismissed under section 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Consequently, the Deputy President decided to dismiss the application.

The final order made by the Deputy President was that the application for an unfair dismissal remedy made by Mrs Michelle McAtackney on 9 November 2024 under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 is dismissed.

Michelle McAtackney v The Trustee for the Johnson Property Trust

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established