Nirjala Prajapati v Culetto Holdings Pty Ltd

Case [2023] FWC 3474


[2023] FWC 3474

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.365—General protections

Nirjala Prajapati
v

Culetto Holdings Pty Ltd

(C2023/6652)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 22 DECEMBER 2023

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal – application dismissed.

  1. On 26 October 2023, Ms Nirjala Prajapati made an application under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act). The applicant alleges that she was dismissed in contravention of the general protection provisions in Part 3-1 of the Act.

  1. The application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) (regulations) or by a completed application for waiver of the lodgement fee (waiver application). The applicant has not responded to correspondence from the Commission alerting her to this deficiency, nor has the deficiency been rectified. I have decided to dismiss the application for the following reasons.

Context

  1. On 1 November 2023, the Commission emailed correspondence to Ms Prajapati’s nominated email address advising that her application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if she wished to proceed with the application. The email further stated as follows:

“Please pay the application fee within 7 calendar days (or apply to have the fee waived) so we can progress your case.

If you don’t make payment within 7 days your application may be dismissed.”

  1. On 6 November 2023, the Commission emailed correspondence to Ms Prajapati’s nominated email address reminding that her application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if she wished to proceed with the application. The correspondence instructed the applicant on how to pay the application fee or make a waiver application and further stated as follows:

“Reminder: You need to pay the application fee (or apply to have the fee waived) or your application may be dismissed.”.

  1. A final attempt to contact Ms Prajapati on her nominated telephone number and her representative was made by the Commission on 8 November 2023 and 13 November 2023 to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. The calls were not answered, and a voicemail message was left advising that payment of the required fee was still outstanding.

  1. To date, the applicant has not paid the lodgement fee or filed a completed waiver application.

Legislative framework

  1. In relation to an application made pursuant to s.365 of the Act, s.367(1) provides that the application “must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the regulations.” At the time the application was made, the regulations prescribed a fee of $83.30. The regulations also allow for an application to be made for the fee to be waived.

  1. Section 587 of the Act provides as follows:

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.

(2) Despite paragraphs (1) (b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773, or an application under section 527F that does not consist solely of an application for a stop sexual harassment order, on the ground that the application:

(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or

(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.

(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.

Consideration and conclusion

  1. The applicant has neither paid the lodgement fee nor sought a fee waiver. Accordingly, the application is not made in accordance with s.367 of the Act.

  1. The applicant has taken no action to address the deficiency despite being notified of it by the Commission on multiple occasions. In these circumstances, I have decided to exercise my discretion to dismiss the application in accordance with s.587(1)(a) of the Act.

  1. The application is dismissed.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR769834>

Details
AGLC
Nirjala Prajapati v Culetto Holdings Pty Ltd [2023] FWC 3474
Case
[2023] FWC 3474
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Nirjala Prajapati v Culetto Holdings Pty Ltd was heard by the Fair Work Commission, where Ms Prajapati alleged that she was dismissed in contravention of the general protection provisions under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission was tasked with determining whether to proceed with the application, which was made without the required filing fee or a completed waiver application. The nature of the dispute involved the procedural compliance with the Fair Work Regulations 2009, specifically the requirement to pay a prescribed fee or apply for a waiver when lodging an application under section 365 of the Fair Work Act.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the application could proceed in light of the failure to comply with the fee requirements, and whether the Commission had the discretion to dismiss the application on the basis of procedural non-compliance. The Commission had to consider the statutory provisions under section 367 of the Act, which mandates that an application be accompanied by the prescribed fee, and section 587, which allows for the dismissal of applications that do not comply with the Act or that lack reasonable prospects of success. The Commission also had to weigh the provisions that protect certain applications from dismissal on the grounds of being frivolous or having no reasonable prospects of success.

The Commission exercised its discretion to dismiss the application under section 587(1)(a) of the Act, as the application was not made in accordance with the Act due to the absence of the required fee or waiver application. Despite multiple attempts to notify Ms Prajapati of the deficiency and to provide her an opportunity to rectify it, she failed to take any action. The Vice President concluded that the application was not in compliance with the legislative requirements and dismissed it accordingly.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.