Paul Snooke v Australian Taxation Office

[2024] FWC 1887

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Paul Snooke
v

Australian Taxation Office

(U2024/5472)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 30 JULY 2024

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

On 14 May 2024 Mr Paul Snooke made an application to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

The application was incomplete because Mr Snooke did not pay the required fee or file a completed waiver form.

On 17 May 2024, Commission staff emailed Mr Snooke advising that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wanted to proceed with the application. That email also warned that if payment is not made or a waiver form was not received within 14 days the application may be dismissed. An SMS notification was also sent to Mr Snooke advising that there was a problem with his application and asking that he contact the Commission.

On 18 June 2024 Commission staff attempted to call Mr Snooke to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. The call was not answered and a voicemail message was left asking Mr Snooke to urgently contact the Commission by close of business 19 June 2024 to make payment. Mr Snooke was once again warned that his application was at risk of being dismissed.

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

Section 395 of the Act, which deals with application fees, provides as follows:

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.

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.

Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3‑2, see section 399A.

…

(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:
(a) on its own initiative; or
(b) on application.

Mr Snooke’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 Mr Snooke’s application.

I am satisfied that Mr Snooke’s application should be dismissed. Mr Snooke has been given ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in the application. The Commission’s inquiries, requests and warnings have largely been ignored.

I have separately made an order dismissing Mr Snooke’s application (PR777136).

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The case of Paul Snooke versus the Australian Taxation Office was heard by the Fair Work Commission (FWC) under the Fair Work Act 2009. Mr Paul Snooke lodged an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal on 14 May 2024. The application was incomplete as it did not include the required filing fee or a completed waiver form. Despite warnings and multiple attempts by the FWC to contact Mr Snooke, he failed to respond, leading to the application being dismissed.

The legal issues before the FWC included whether Mr Snooke's application complied with the procedural requirements under sections 394 and 395 of the Fair Work Act. The FWC had to consider whether the application was made in accordance with the Act, whether it was frivolous or vexatious, and whether it had reasonable prospects of success. Additionally, the FWC examined whether it had the discretion to dismiss Mr Snooke's application under section 587 of the Act.

The FWC found that Mr Snooke's application was not made in accordance with the Act because the prescribed fee had not been paid or waived. Despite providing multiple opportunities and warnings for Mr Snooke to rectify the deficiencies, he did not respond. Therefore, the FWC exercised its discretion under section 587(1)(a) to dismiss the application. The Deputy President concluded that Mr Snooke's application should be dismissed as he had ignored the Commission's inquiries, requests, and warnings.

In light of the above, the Deputy President issued an order dismissing Mr Snooke's application (PR777136).

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established