Natalia Maric v Venroy Pty Limited Summary

[2025] FWC 2658

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Natalia Maric
v

Venroy Pty Limited

(U2025/11665)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BELL

MELBOURNE, 9 SEPTEMBER 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – dismissal under s.587(1)(a) at the Commission’s initiative.

On 15 July 2025, Ms Natalia Maric made an unfair dismissal application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that Ms Maric’s application has not been made in accordance with the Act and that it is appropriate to dismiss the application.

Ms Maric’s application was incomplete because she did not pay the required fee and her request for a fee waiver dated 25 July 2025 was refused. On 1 August 2025, Ms Maric was informed that the Commission was not satisfied based on her fee waiver application that she would experience serious hardship if she was required to pay the requisite application fee.

Commission staff attempted to contact Ms Maric on:

25 July 2025, by email and voicemail;
31 July 2025, by email;
1 August 2025, by email; and
6 August 2025, by email.

On 14 August 2025, Commission staff emailed Ms Maric requiring a response by 21 August 2025. She was advised that if no response was received her application may be dismissed under s.587(1)(a) of the Act because it has not been made in accordance with the Act. No response has been received, the fee has not been paid, and her request for a fee waiver was refused.

Ms Maric has been given ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in the application. She has not responded to multiple enquiries and warnings that her application may be dismissed. I am satisfied that Ms Maric’s application should be dismissed. I make the following order:

The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Ms Natalia Maric on 15 July 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Natalia Maric filed an unfair dismissal application against Venroy Pty Limited under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was made on 15 July 2025 and the Fair Work Commission was required to determine whether the dismissal was unfair. The Commission found that Ms Maric’s application was incomplete as she had not paid the requisite application fee and her request for a fee waiver was refused on 1 August 2025. Despite multiple attempts to contact Ms Maric and warnings that her application may be dismissed, she did not respond to the Commission’s enquiries and did not pay the fee. The Commission held that Ms Maric’s application had not been made in accordance with the Act and dismissed the application.

The court was required to determine whether the application was made in accordance with the Fair Work Act 2009. The court considered whether Ms Maric had fulfilled the requirements of the Act, including paying the application fee or obtaining a fee waiver. The court also considered whether Ms Maric had responded to multiple attempts to contact her and warnings that her application may be dismissed. The court found that Ms Maric’s application was incomplete and that she had not responded to multiple attempts to contact her and warnings that her application may be dismissed. The court held that Ms Maric’s application had not been made in accordance with the Act and dismissed the application.

The court held that Ms Maric’s application was incomplete as she had not paid the application fee and her request for a fee waiver was refused. The court found that Ms Maric had been given ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in the application. The court considered that despite multiple attempts to contact Ms Maric and warnings that her application may be dismissed, she did not respond to the Commission’s enquiries and did not pay the fee. The court held that Ms Maric’s application should be dismissed. The court dismissed the application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed Ms Maric’s unfair dismissal application. The Commission found that Ms Maric’s application was incomplete as she had not paid the requisite application fee and her request for a fee waiver was refused. The Commission held that Ms Maric had been given ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in the application. The Commission found that Ms Maric had not responded to multiple attempts to contact her and warnings that her application may be dismissed. The Commission held that Ms Maric’s application had not been made in accordance with the Act and dismissed the application.

Natalia Maric v Venroy Pty Limited

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established