Paul Soligo v Five Star Outdoors Pty Ltd Summary

[2025] FWC 1782

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Paul Soligo
v

Five Star Outdoors Pty Ltd

(U2025/4916)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT O’NEILL

MELBOURNE, 24 JUNE 2025

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 22 April 2025 Mr Paul Soligo made an unfair dismissal application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

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

Mr Soligo’s application was incomplete because he did not pay the required fee[1] or file a completed request to waive the fee.

Commission staff attempted to contact Mr Soligo on:
·     2 May 2025, by phone;
·     2 May 2025, by SMS; and on
·     15 May 2025, by phone and voicemail.
On 5 June 2025, my Chambers emailed Mr Soligo requiring a response by 12 June 2025. He was advised that if no response was received, his application may be dismissed under s.587(1)(a) of the Act because it has not been made in accordance with the Act. No response has been received, the fee has not been paid, and no waiver request has been received.

Mr Soligo has been given ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in the application. He has not responded to multiple enquiries and warnings that his application may be dismissed. I am satisfied that Mr Soligo’s application should be dismissed. I make the following order:

1. The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Paul Soligo on 22 April 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

[1] Section 395 of the Act.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Paul Soligo versus Five Star Outdoors Pty Ltd, the applicant, Mr Paul Soligo, lodged an unfair dismissal application against his former employer under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The decision was made by the Fair Work Commission, with Deputy President O’Neill delivering the judgement on 24 June 2025. The central issue before the court was whether Mr Soligo's application was compliant with the requirements of the Act, specifically concerning the payment of the required application fee or the submission of a completed fee waiver request.

The court identified that Mr Soligo's application was incomplete as it lacked the necessary application fee or a waiver request. Despite multiple attempts by Commission staff to contact Mr Soligo via phone, SMS, and voicemail, he did not respond or take any action to rectify the deficiency. Further, an email from the Deputy President’s chambers on 5 June 2025 notified Mr Soligo that his application could be dismissed if he did not respond by 12 June 2025. Given that no response was received and the fee remained unpaid, the Deputy President concluded that the application was not made in accordance with the Act.

Deputy President O’Neill found that Mr Soligo had ample opportunity to address the incompleteness of his application but failed to do so despite warnings. Consequently, the court dismissed the application under section 587(1)(a) of the Act. The order made by the Deputy President was that the unfair dismissal application made by Mr Soligo on 22 April 2025 be dismissed.

Paul Soligo v Five Star Outdoors Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established