Ruby King-Morrison v Reef Seafood & Sushi Brisbane Pty Ltd

[2025] FWC 41

[2025] FWC 41

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Ruby King-Morrison
v

Reef Seafood & Sushi Brisbane Pty Ltd

(U2024/9871)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BEAUMONT PERTH, 6 JANUARY 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – unpaid application fee – application is not made in accordance with this Act – application dismissed under s.587.

1. On 25 August 2024, Ms Ruby King-Morrison made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act).

1. For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that Ms King-Morrison’s application has not been made in accordance with the Act and that it is appropriate to dismiss the application.

1. Section 395 of the Act is in the following terms:

“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.”

1. Ms King-Morrison’s application was incomplete because Ms King-Morrison did not pay the required fee or file a completed request to waive the fee.

1. Commission staff contacted Ms King-Morrison on the following dates:

·   2 September 2024 by telephone, SMS and email;

·   3 September 2024 by telephone;

·   4 September 2024 by telephone;

·   20 September 2024 by telephone;

·   2 October 2024 by email;

·   3 October 2024 by SMS; and

·   17 October 2024 by email.

1. On 2 September 2024, Ms King-Morrison was advised that she must pay the filing fee or apply for a waiver if she wished to proceed with the application, and that failure to do so within 14 days might result in her application being dismissed.  On 2 October 2024, Ms King-Morrison was also warned that the application could be dismissed if the filing fee was not paid within 7 calendar days.

1. To date there has been no further response from Ms King-Morrison, no fee paid, and no waiver request received.

1. Section 587 of the Act includes the following provisions:

“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.

…

(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a)   on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.”

1. Ms King-Morrison’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 Ms King-Morrison’s application.

1. Ms King-Morrison has been given ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in the application (see generally Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302 at [15]-[16] and the cases cited therein). The Commission’s inquiries and warnings have largely been ignored.

1. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that Ms King-Morrison’s application should be dismissed.

1. I have separately made an order dismissing Ms King-Morrison’s application (PR783020).

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR783019>