Oliver Flintoff v Oryx Communities AP Pty Ltd, Cynthia Ponniah

[2025] FWC 1480

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.365—General protections

Oliver Flintoff
v

Oryx Communities AP Pty Ltd, Cynthia Ponniah

(C2025/2754)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 29 MAY 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 5 April 2025 Mr Oliver Flintoff made a general protections application to the Fair Work Commission under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Mr Flintoff’s 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 Flintoff’s application if the application is not made in accordance with the Act. Mr Flintoff 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 Flintoff’s 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 Oliver Flintoff on 5 April 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission addressed the general protections application filed by Oliver Flintoff against Oryx Communities AP Pty Ltd and Cynthia Ponniah. Mr Flintoff sought to have his dismissal reviewed under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009, alleging contravention of the Act. However, the application was not compliant with the legislative requirements, specifically regarding the payment of the prescribed application fee. As a result, the Deputy President had to determine whether the application could be dismissed under section 587 of the Act due to the failure to meet the procedural prerequisites.

The legal issue before the Commission was whether the non-compliance with the fee payment requirement justified the dismissal of Mr Flintoff's application. The Deputy President considered whether Mr Flintoff had been provided sufficient opportunity to rectify the fee deficiency and to justify why his application should not be dismissed. The case law, particularly Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302, was referenced to support the decision-making process. The Court examined the procedural history and the actions taken by Mr Flintoff in light of the statutory provisions.

After evaluating the procedural history and the arguments presented by Mr Flintoff, the Deputy President concluded that the application was not made in accordance with the Act due to the unpaid fee. Mr Flintoff had been afforded adequate opportunities to comply with the fee requirement and to present reasons why his application should not be dismissed. However, he had not successfully demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant the Commission's discretion not to dismiss the application. Consequently, the Deputy President dismissed the application under section 587(1)(a) of the Act.

The final order was that the application made by Mr Oliver Flintoff under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 on 5 April 2025 is dismissed. The decision underscores the importance of procedural compliance in applications to the Fair Work Commission and the consequences of failing to meet statutory requirements.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established