Nisar Ahmed v The Trustee for Swissport Australia Unit Trust

[2025] FWC 394

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION and ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Nisar Ahmed
v

The Trustee For Swissport Australia Unit Trust

(U2024/11366)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 11 FEBRUARY 2025

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

On 24 September 2024, Mr Nisar Ahmed made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

The application filed by Mr Ahmed was incomplete insofar as he has not paid the application fee or submitted a completed waiver application.

Commission staff attempted to contact Mr Ahmed on the following dates:

·   27 September 2024 by telephone;
·   30 September 2024 by email and SMS;
·   17 October 2024 by telephone;
·   29 November 2024 by email and SMS;
·   2 December 2024 by email;
·   3 January 2025 by email and SMS.

Mr Ahmed 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 have decided to dismiss Mr Ahmed’s unfair dismissal application and make the following order:

1. The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Ahmed on 24 September 2024 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Nisar Ahmed lodged an unfair dismissal claim against The Trustee for Swissport Australia Unit Trust with the Fair Work Commission (FWC) under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The FWC dismissed the application due to Mr Ahmed's failure to pay the application fee or submit a completed waiver application, despite multiple attempts by the Commission staff to contact him to rectify this deficiency.

The central issue before the Deputy President was whether Mr Ahmed's application could be considered in light of the incomplete submission. The Deputy President considered the statutory requirements for filing an application and the need for compliance with these provisions. The Deputy President noted that Mr Ahmed had been provided with sufficient opportunity to address the incompleteness of his application and had failed to do so. The Deputy President referenced previous case law to highlight the importance of adhering to the legislative requirements for making an application to the Commission.

Following the reasoning set out above, the Deputy President dismissed the unfair dismissal application made by Mr Ahmed. The Deputy President concluded that Mr Ahmed's application did not comply with the legislative requirements, and the failure to address the incompleteness of the application warranted its dismissal. The Deputy President made an order dismissing the application and noted that the dismissal was in accordance with section 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established