Paula Eliza Gurmendi Zacarias v Multhana Property Services Pty Ltd Summary

[2025] FWC 2730

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Paula Eliza Gurmendi Zacarias
v

Multhana Property Services Pty Ltd

(U2025/9408)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 12 SEPTEMBER 2025

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

On 2 June 2025, Ms Paula Eliza Gurmendi Zacarias made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

The application filed by Ms Gurmendi Zacarias was incomplete because she did not pay the application fee or apply for a waiver of the fee.

Commission staff attempted to contact Ms Gurmendi Zacarias on 13 June, and 25 June 2025 by telephone, SMS and email.

Section 587 confers a discretion on the Commission to dismiss Ms Gurmendi Zacarias’ application if it has not been made in accordance with the Act. Ms Gurmendi Zacarias has had ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in her application and has had ample opportunity to show why her 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 make the following order:

A.The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Ms Paula Eliza Gurmendi Zacarias on 2 June 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission was asked to decide on an unfair dismissal application made by Paula Eliza Gurmendi Zacarias against Multhana Property Services Pty Ltd. Ms Gurmendi Zacarias filed the application on 2 June 2025, alleging unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. However, her application was incomplete because she failed to pay the application fee or seek a waiver of the fee. The Commission attempted to contact Ms Gurmendi Zacarias on multiple occasions to rectify the deficiency but was unsuccessful. The Deputy President was required to determine whether to dismiss the application for non-compliance with the Act or proceed to hear the merits of the case.

The key legal issue for the Deputy President to resolve was whether the application could be dismissed under section 587 of the Fair Work Act due to non-compliance with the procedural requirements. The Deputy President noted that the application was incomplete and that Ms Gurmendi Zacarias had been given multiple opportunities to rectify the deficiency. The decision in Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302 was cited as precedent, where similar issues were considered. The Deputy President concluded that Ms Gurmendi Zacarias had ample opportunity to correct the application and did not provide any justification for why the application should not be dismissed.

The Deputy President dismissed the application on the basis that it had not been made in accordance with the Fair Work Act. The Deputy President found that Ms Gurmendi Zacarias had been given sufficient opportunity to address the deficiency in her application and had failed to do so. The Deputy President noted the importance of complying with procedural requirements and the precedent established in Bond v Carbridge. The Deputy President made the following order: A. The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Ms Paula Eliza Gurmendi Zacarias on 2 June 2025 is dismissed.

Paula Eliza Gurmendi Zacarias v Multhana Property Services Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established