Richard Oliver v The Trustee for Roth Family Trust

[2025] FWC 395

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION and ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Richard Oliver
v

The Trustee For Roth Family Trust

(U2024/12219)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 11 FEBRUARY 2025

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

On 14 October 2024, Mr Richard Oliver made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

The application filed by Mr Oliver was incomplete because he did not pay the application fee or submit a completed fee waiver application.

Commission staff attempted to contact Mr Oliver on the following dates:

·   18 October 2024 by email;
·   21 October 2024 by SMS;
·   11 November 2024 by telephone;
·   13 November 2024 by email;
·   20 November 2024 by telephone.

Mr Oliver has had ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in his application and has 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 Oliver’s unfair dismissal application and make the following order:

1. The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Oliver on 14 October 2024 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Richard Oliver filed an unfair dismissal claim against The Trustee for Roth Family Trust with the Fair Work Commission. The crux of the dispute was whether Mr Oliver's application for an unfair dismissal remedy could be processed despite the non-payment of the requisite application fee or submission of a completed fee waiver application. The case was heard by Deputy President Easton in Sydney.

The legal issues before the court centred on whether Mr Oliver's application complied with the procedural requirements stipulated in the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the application was valid despite the missing fee or waiver application and whether Mr Oliver had provided sufficient grounds for the court to waive the fee or consider the application despite the procedural non-compliance. The court also had to consider whether Mr Oliver had ample opportunity to rectify the deficiencies in his application and whether he had shown sufficient cause for the application to be accepted.

In ruling on the matter, Deputy President Easton noted that Mr Oliver had been given multiple opportunities to either pay the application fee or submit a completed fee waiver application, but had failed to do so. The court referred to precedent set in Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302, which emphasised the importance of applicants adhering to the procedural requirements of the Act. The court found that Mr Oliver had not shown sufficient grounds for the application to be accepted despite the procedural shortcomings, and accordingly dismissed the application. The Deputy President made an order dismissing Mr Oliver's unfair dismissal application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established