Ryan Baker v Air Affairs Australia Pty Ltd

Case [2025] FWC 1915


[2025] FWC 1915

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Ryan Baker
v

Air Affairs Australia Pty Ltd

(U2025/8818)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT O’NEILL

MELBOURNE, 7 JULY 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).

  1. On 21 May 2025, Mr Ryan Baker made an unfair dismissal application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

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

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

  1. Commission staff attempted to contact Mr Baker on:

·     23 May 2025, by email;

·     26 May 2025, by SMS;

·     28 May 2025, by email;

·     4 June 2025, by telephone and email.

  1. On 27 June 2025, my Chambers emailed Mr Baker requiring a response by 4 July 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.

  1. Mr Baker 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 Baker’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 Ryan Baker on 21 May 2025 is dismissed.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT


[1] Section 395 of the Act.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR788892>

Details
AGLC
Ryan Baker v Air Affairs Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 1915
Case
[2025] FWC 1915
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ryan Baker brought an unfair dismissal application against Air Affairs Australia Pty Ltd, seeking relief under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The primary dispute was whether Mr Baker's dismissal was unfair, and whether he was entitled to the associated remedies. The matter was heard by Deputy President O'Neill at the Fair Work Commission in Melbourne on 7 July 2025. The court was tasked with determining whether Mr Baker's application was complete and compliant with the statutory requirements, specifically concerning the payment of the application fee or a request to waive the fee.

The central legal issue was whether Mr Baker's application for unfair dismissal had been made in accordance with the Fair Work Act 2009. Section 395 of the Act stipulates that an application for unfair dismissal must be accompanied by the requisite fee, or a valid request to waive the fee. Mr Baker's application was incomplete as he failed to pay the application fee or file a waiver request. Despite multiple attempts by the Commission to contact Mr Baker regarding this deficiency, he did not respond, leading to the conclusion that the application was not made in accordance with the Act.

Deputy President O'Neill found that Mr Baker's application was incomplete due to his failure to pay the required fee or file a waiver request. Despite repeated attempts to contact Mr Baker, he did not rectify the deficiency within the specified timeframe. Consequently, the Deputy President dismissed the application under section 587(1)(a) of the Act. The court concluded that Mr Baker's application was not made in accordance with the Act and thus appropriately dismissed. The court made an order dismissing Mr Baker's application for unfair dismissal.

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.