Pam Griffin v Palmer Coolum Resort Pty Ltd Summary

[2024] FWC 2971

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Pam Griffin
v

Palmer Coolum Resort Pty Ltd

(U2024/9683)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 25 OCTOBER 2024

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – unpaid application fee – application is not made in accordance with this Act – application dismissed – s.587(1)(a).

On 20 August 2024 Ms Pam Griffin made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

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

Section 395 of the Act is in the following terms:

“395 Application fees
(1) An application to the FWC under this Division must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the regulations.
(2) The regulations may prescribe:
(a) a fee for making an application to the FWC under this Division; and
(b) a method for indexing the fee; and
(c) the circumstances in which all or part of the fee may be waived or refunded.”

Ms Griffin’s application was incomplete because Ms Griffin did not pay the required fee or file a completed request to waive the fee.

Commission staff contacted Ms Griffin on the following dates:

29 August 2024 by telephone and letter; and
17 September 2024 by telephone.

Ms Griffin was advised that she must pay the filing fee or apply for a waiver if she wished to proceed with the application. Ms Griffin was also warned that the application could be dismissed if the filing fee was not paid by 12 September 2024.

To date there has been no response from Ms Griffin, no fee paid and no waiver request received.

Section 587 of the Act includes the following provisions:

“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.

…

(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or
(b) on application.”

Ms Griffin’s application was not made in accordance with the Act (per s.587(1)(a)) because the prescribed fee (per s.395) has not been paid or waived. Section 587 confers a discretion on the Commission to dismiss Ms Griffin’s application.

Ms Griffin has been given ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in the application (see generally Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302 at [15]-[16] and the cases cited therein). The Commission’s inquiries and warnings have largely been ignored.

In the circumstances I am satisfied that Ms Griffin’s application should be dismissed.

I have separately made an order dismissing Ms Griffin’s application (PR780627).

DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Pam Griffin v Palmer Coolum Resort Pty Ltd, the applicant, Ms Pam Griffin, lodged an unfair dismissal application under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was against Palmer Coolum Resort Pty Ltd, the respondent. The application was heard by Deputy President Easton of the Fair Work Commission on 25 October 2024. The crux of the dispute was whether Ms Griffin's application could proceed given the absence of the requisite application fee and the lack of a waiver request. Ms Griffin's application was dismissed as it did not comply with the mandatory requirements of the Act, specifically regarding the application fee as stipulated in section 395.

The legal issues before the court centered on whether the application could be dismissed for non-compliance with the Fair Work Act. Section 395 of the Act mandates that any application to the Fair Work Commission must be accompanied by a prescribed fee, unless a waiver has been granted. Ms Griffin's failure to pay the fee or apply for a waiver raised the question of whether the application could be dismissed under section 587 of the Act, which allows for the dismissal of applications that are not made in accordance with the Act. The court had to determine if the application was deficient due to the missing fee and if the Commission had the discretion to dismiss the application under the circumstances.

The court found that Ms Griffin's application was not made in accordance with the Act, as required by section 587(1)(a). The application was incomplete because Ms Griffin did not pay the required fee or file a waiver request. The court noted that Ms Griffin had been given multiple opportunities to rectify the deficiency but had not done so. Despite warnings that the application could be dismissed if the fee was not paid by a specified date, Ms Griffin did not respond. The court exercised its discretion under section 587 to dismiss the application, finding that the application was frivolous and had no reasonable prospects of success. Consequently, the court dismissed the application and issued an order to that effect.

Pam Griffin v Palmer Coolum Resort Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established