| [2025] FWC 570 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION and ORDER |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Sally Peeler
v
Like Home Early Learning Pty. Ltd.
(U2024/15758)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON | SYDNEY, 24 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 29 December 2024, Ms Sally Peeler 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 Peeler 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 Peeler’s application.
Commission staff attempted to contact Ms Peeler on the following dates:
· 2 January 2025 by telephone;
· 6 January 2025 by telephone;
· 9 January 2025 by email;
· 14 January 2025 by telephone; and
· 17 January 2025 by telephone.
Ms Peeler 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 have decided to dismiss Ms Peeler’s unfair dismissal application and make the following order:
1. The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Ms Sally Peeler on 29 December 2024 is dismissed.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR784724>
- AGLC
- Sally Peeler v Like Home Early Learning Pty. Ltd [2025] FWC 570
- Case
- [2025] FWC 570
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issue before the court was whether the application could proceed given the failure to comply with the procedural requirement of paying the application fee or securing a waiver. The court had to determine if it had discretion to dismiss the application under section 587(1)(a) of the Act. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether sufficient opportunity had been given to the applicant to rectify the deficiency in her application. This issue hinged on the interpretation of procedural requirements and the principles of fairness in administrative law, particularly in light of precedents such as Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge.
Deputy President Easton found that the application did not comply with the statutory requirements because the prescribed fee was neither paid nor waived. The court emphasised that section 587 of the Act confers a discretion on the Commission to dismiss an application that does not adhere to the procedural prerequisites. Despite multiple attempts by the FWC staff to contact Ms Peeler and provide her an opportunity to rectify the deficiency, she did not take any action to address the procedural requirement. The court concluded that there was ample opportunity for Ms Peeler to comply with the procedural requirement and thus decided to dismiss the application. The Deputy President cited Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge and other relevant cases to support the decision.
The court ordered that the unfair dismissal application made by Ms Sally Peeler on 29 December 2024 be dismissed. This decision underscored the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in making an application to the FWC and highlighted the Commission's discretion to ensure compliance with the statutory framework.
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.