Nathan Eagles v Bartons Fields Pty Ltd

[2025] FWC 3180

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.365—General protections

Nathan Eagles
v

Bartons Fields Pty Ltd

(C2025/8868)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 23 OCTOBER 2025

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal – application fee not paid or waived – application not made in accordance with the Act – application dismissed.

On 3 September 2025 Mr Nathan Eagles made a general protections application to the Fair Work Commission under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Mr Eagles’ application was not made in accordance with the Act (per s.587(1)(a)) because the prescribed fee (per s.367) has not been paid or waived.

Section 587 confers a discretion on the Commission to dismiss Mr Eagles’ application if the application is not made in accordance with the Act. Mr Eagles has been given ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in the application and has also 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 have decided to dismiss Mr Eagles’ general protections claim using the power available under s.587(1)(a) and make the following order:

The application under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Nathan Eagles on 3 September 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Nathan Eagles filed a general protections application against Bartons Fields Pty Ltd with the Fair Work Commission under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application, made on 3 September 2025, sought to address alleged contraventions involving his dismissal. However, the application was not made in accordance with the requirements of the Act because the prescribed fee was neither paid nor waived, as mandated by section 367 of the Act. Consequently, Deputy President Easton of the Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether to dismiss the application under section 587(1)(a) of the Act, given the non-compliance with the procedural requirements.

The primary legal issue before Deputy President Easton was whether the non-payment of the prescribed application fee justified the dismissal of Mr Eagles' general protections application. Section 587(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009 grants the Commission the discretion to dismiss an application if it is not made in accordance with the Act. The Deputy President considered the procedural history and opportunities given to Mr Eagles to rectify the deficiency and comply with the fee requirement. Mr Eagles had been provided with ample opportunity to address the issue, yet failed to do so, leading to the consideration of whether the application should be dismissed under section 587(1)(a).

In rendering the decision, Deputy President Easton noted that Mr Eagles had been given sufficient opportunities to pay the prescribed fee or demonstrate why his application should not be dismissed. Despite these opportunities, Mr Eagles did not rectify the procedural deficiency. The Deputy President concluded that the application was not made in accordance with the Act and exercised the discretion to dismiss the application under section 587(1)(a). The decision was based on the non-compliance with the Act's procedural requirements and the failure of Mr Eagles to address the issue despite ample opportunity.

The final order made by Deputy President Easton was that the application made by Mr Nathan Eagles under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 on 3 September 2025 is dismissed. This decision underscores the importance of procedural compliance in making applications to the Fair Work Commission and the consequences of failing to adhere to the prescribed requirements.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established