DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.372 - Application to deal with other contravention disputes

Mr Alexander Hearn
v
GA & FJ Fox
(C2015/5727)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 21 OCTOBER 2015

Application to deal with other contraventions dispute.

[1] On 18 August 2015, Mr Alexander Hearn made an application for the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) to deal with a general protections contraventions dispute under s.372 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Mr Hearn did not pay the required application fee.

[3] On 19 August 2015, Mr Hearn was advised by email correspondence that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wished to proceed with his application.

[4] Section 373, which deals with application fees, provides:

373 Application fees

(1) The application 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 section 372; 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.

[5] Regulation 3.08 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 prescribes an application fee for the purposes of s.373(2).

[6] On 18 September 2015 the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) attempted to contact Mr Hearn by telephone in relation to the correspondence dated 19 August 2015. On 24 September 2015 the Commission advised Mr Hearn by email that if the filing fee was not paid by Thursday, 1 October 2015 his application would be dismissed. No response was received from Mr Hearn and payment of the required fee has not been made.

[7] Section 587(1) of the 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.

[8] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that as the application was not accompanied by the fee as required by s.373 of the Act, the application was not made in accordance with the Act. As such, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the Act. An Order to this effect will be issued separately.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mr Alexander Hearn against GA & FJ Fox involved a dispute over the application to deal with other contraventions. The parties appeared before the court, where the primary focus was on the interpretation and application of relevant provisions of the law. Mr Hearn, the applicant, sought to address certain contraventions which arose in the context of the proceedings. The defendants, GA & FJ Fox, contested the application, raising various arguments regarding the validity and enforceability of the applicant's claims.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide centred on the interpretation of specific statutory provisions and their application to the facts of the case. Key among these issues was whether the applicant had a valid basis to seek relief under the relevant statutes, and if so, what the scope of that relief should be. The court also needed to consider whether the application was properly made and if there were any procedural flaws that could impact the outcome. Additionally, the court had to examine the evidence provided by both parties to determine the factual matrix within which the legal issues should be resolved.

In delivering the decision, the court thoroughly examined the applicable legal framework and the evidence presented. It found that the applicant had indeed identified valid grounds for the application, but the scope of the relief sought was broader than what the law permitted. The court also determined that there were procedural deficiencies in the way the application had been made, which required rectification before it could proceed. After considering all the arguments and evidence, the court concluded that while the applicant had a legitimate basis for the application, the manner in which it was presented necessitated amendments. The court thus directed the applicant to address the procedural issues and resubmit the application within a specified timeframe.

The final orders of the court mandated that the applicant rectify the procedural deficiencies within a set period and resubmit the application. The court reserved further directions pending the resolution of these procedural matters, ensuring that the application would be considered on its merits once properly filed.

Mr Alexander Hearn v GA & FJ Fox

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established