Mitchell Ryan v Spinifex Australia Pty Ltd Summary

[2025] FWC 941

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION and ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Mitchell Ryan
v

Spinifex Australia Pty Ltd

(U2025/753)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 3 APRIL 2025

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

On 22 January 2025, Mr Mitchell Ryan made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Mr Ryan’s application was not made in accordance with the Act (per s.587(1)(a)) because the prescribed fee (per s.395) has not been paid or waived.

Commission staff attempted to contact Mr Ryan on 28 January, 10 February and 25 February 2025 by telephone, SMS and email.

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

1. The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Mitchell Ryan on 22 January 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mitchell Ryan has brought an application to the Fair Work Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. The application was made under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009, and the respondent is Spinifex Australia Pty Ltd. The application was lodged on 22 January 2025, but the prescribed fee was not paid or waived, a requirement stipulated by section 395 of the Act. Despite multiple attempts by Commission staff to contact Mr Ryan on 28 January, 10 February, and 25 February 2025 through telephone, SMS, and email to rectify this deficiency, the issue remained unresolved.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether Mr Ryan's application complied with the procedural requirements of the Act. Specifically, the court needed to determine if section 587 of the Act applied, which grants the Commission discretion to dismiss an application not made in accordance with the Act. The court also had to consider whether Mr Ryan had been given sufficient opportunity to rectify the procedural error in his application, and whether he had demonstrated a valid reason for not complying with the fee requirement.

In its decision, the Commission noted that Mr Ryan had ample opportunity to address the fee deficiency and to provide reasons why his application should not be dismissed. The court found that the application did not comply with the requirements of section 587(1)(a) of the Act, leading to the conclusion that the application was not made in accordance with the Act. The court referenced precedent in Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge, where similar circumstances were considered, to support its decision. Given the non-compliance and the lack of justification from Mr Ryan, the Commission exercised its discretion to dismiss the application.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the application for unfair dismissal made by Mitchell Ryan on 22 January 2025 be dismissed. This order was based on the failure to pay the prescribed fee or have it waived, and the absence of any valid reason for this procedural lapse.

Mitchell Ryan v Spinifex Australia Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established