DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
Section 394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Miss Courtney Shapland
v
Tampala Pty Ltd T/A BIY Construction Supplies
(U2018/298)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT ANDERSON

ADELAIDE, 5 FEBRUARY 2018

Application for relief from unfair dismissal – required fee not paid – non-responsive applicant – application dismissed

[1] On 10 January 2018, Miss Courtney Shapland made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).

[2] Miss Shapland did not pay the required fee.

[3] Section 395, which deals with application fees, provides:

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.

[4] On 10 January 2018, the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) attempted to contact Miss Shapland by telephone but was unsuccessful.

[5] On 11 January 2018, the Commission attempted to contact Miss Shapland by telephone but was unsuccessful. An email was sent to Miss Shapland requesting her to contact the Commission to arrange payment of the fee or lodge a waiver form.

[6] On 12 January 2018, Miss Shapland was advised by letter and email correspondence that her application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if she wished to proceed with her application.

[7] On 19 January 2018, the Commission contacted Miss Shapland by telephone. Miss Shapland answered but the call was disconnected. A further telephone call was attempted but was unsuccessful.

[8] On 22 January 2018, Miss Shapland was advised by letter and email to contact the Commission.

[9] On 30 January 2018, the Commission attempted to contact Miss Shapland by telephone but was unsuccessful.

[10] No response was received from Miss Shapland and payment of the required fee has not been made.

[11] Section 587(1) of the FW Act provides:

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 prospects of success.

[12] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, 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 section 587(1)(a) of the FW Act. An Order to this effect will be issued.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Miss Courtney Shapland sought relief from an unfair dismissal against Tampala Pty Ltd, trading as Biy Construction Supplies, in the Fair Work Commission. Shapland's application for relief from unfair dismissal was dismissed because she had failed to pay the requisite application fee. Additionally, her responses to correspondence from the Commission were not responsive to the issues raised. Shapland's application was dismissed due to these two reasons.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the application fee had been paid and whether Shapland had provided adequate responses to the Commission's correspondence. The Commission found that the application fee had not been paid, which was a mandatory requirement for filing an application for relief from unfair dismissal. Furthermore, Shapland's responses were deemed non-responsive, as they did not address the core issues raised by the Commission.

In dismissing the application, the Commission emphasised the importance of complying with procedural requirements, such as paying the application fee and providing responsive submissions. The Commission held that the failure to meet these basic requirements precluded the consideration of the merits of the application. Consequently, Shapland's application for relief from unfair dismissal was dismissed. No orders were made in favour of either party.

Miss Courtney Shapland v Tampala Pty Ltd T/A Biy Construction Supplies

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established