Riley Gleeson v All Cast Australia Pty Ltd

Case [2025] FWC 2712


[2025] FWC 2712

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Riley Gleeson
v

All Cast Australia Pty Ltd

(U2025/5275)

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.

  1. On 29 April 2025, Mr Riley Gleeson made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

  1. The application filed by Mr Gleeson was incomplete in the following ways:

·   Mr Gleeson did not pay the application fee or apply for a waiver;

·   Mr Gleeson did not specify the date he commenced employment; and

·   Mr Gleeson did not sign his application.

  1. Commission staff attempted to contact Mr Gleeson on 2 May, 19 May and 25 June 2025 by telephone, SMS and email.

  1. Section 587 confers a discretion on the Commission to dismiss Mr Gleeson’s application if it has not been made in accordance with the Act. Mr Gleeson has had ample opportunity to rectify the deficiencies 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).

  1. I make the following order:

A.The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Riley Gleeson on 29 April 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR791685>

Details
AGLC
Riley Gleeson v All Cast Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 2712
Case
[2025] FWC 2712
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Riley Gleeson lodged an unfair dismissal application with the Fair Work Commission under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was made against All Cast Australia Pty Ltd. The application was incomplete as it did not include the application fee, a waiver for the fee, a specified start date of employment, and Mr Gleeson's signature. The Commission attempted to contact Mr Gleeson to rectify the deficiencies, but he did not respond. The Deputy President of the Fair Work Commission, Easton, dismissed the application.

The court was required to decide whether the application was made in accordance with the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether it should be dismissed under section 587 of the Act. Section 587 allows the Commission to dismiss an application if it has not been made in accordance with the Act. Mr Gleeson had ample opportunity to rectify the deficiencies in his application and had been given multiple opportunities to show why his application should not be dismissed.

The court dismissed the application based on the deficiencies in the application and Mr Gleeson's failure to rectify them. The court found that the application did not comply with the requirements of the Act and that Mr Gleeson had ample opportunity to rectify the deficiencies and respond to the Commission's attempts to contact him. The Deputy President ordered that the application under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 made by Mr Riley Gleeson on 29 April 2025 is dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.