Samriti Samriti v Portier Pacific Pty Ltd trading as Uber Eats
[2025] FWC 2361
•13 AUGUST 2025
| [2025] FWC 2361 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.536LU - Application for an unfair deactivation remedy
Samriti Samriti
v
Portier Pacific Pty Ltd trading as Uber Eats
(UDE2025/114)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAUNDERS | NEWCASTLE, 13 AUGUST 2025 |
Application for an unfair deactivation remedy – application dismissed
Ms Samriti Samriti (Applicant) has made an application under s 536LU of the Fair Work Act 2009 alleging that she was unfairly deactivated by Portier Pacific Pty Ltd trading as Uber Eats. The application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the regulations. The Applicant has not responded to correspondence from the Commission alerting her to the deficiency, nor has she rectified the deficiency. I have decided to dismiss the application under s 587 of the Act for the following reasons.
The application was lodged on 12 June 2025. On 19 June 2025, the Commission sent to the Applicant a letter noting that the application had been made without payment of the required fee. The letter stated that the Applicant could apply for the fee to be waived. On 7 July 2025, the Commission wrote to the Applicant a second time, noting that the lodgement fee remained unpaid and that if it was not paid the matter may be dismissed. On 24 July 2025, the Commission wrote to the Applicant a third time, noting that the lodgement fee had not been paid. The correspondence stated that if the Applicant would like her application to remain active, she would need to pay the filing fee, or apply to have the fee waived, as soon as possible. On 1 August 2025, the Applicant Commission wrote to the Applicant a fourth time, noting that her unfair deactivation application would be dismissed if she did not pay the application fee or apply for a fee waiver prior to 4pm on 8 August 2025.
The Applicant has not paid the lodgement fee or submitted a completed waiver application. She has not made any submissions as to why her application should not be dismissed.
Section 587 of the Act provides as follows:
“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.
…
(2) Despite paragraphs (1) (b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:
(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or
(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.
(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:
(a) on its own initiative; or
(b) on application.”
Section 536LV(1) states that an application to the FWC under this Division must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the regulations. At the time the application was made, the regulations prescribed a fee of $87.20. The regulations also allow for an application to be made for the fee to be waived. The Applicant has neither paid the fee nor applied for the fee to be waived. The unfair deactivation application made by the Applicant did not, at the time it was lodged, and still does not, comply with s 536LV of the Act. This deficiency engages s 587(1)(a): the application was not made in accordance with the Act.
The Commission has a discretion to dismiss the application under s 587. I have decided to exercise this discretion because it is fair and reasonable to do so. The Applicant was notified on multiple occasions that the application was not accompanied by the required fee and no action was taken to address the deficiency within a reasonable time. I dismiss the application in accordance with s 587(1)(a) of the Act.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR790632>
0
0
0