| [2025] FWC 1988 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION AND ORDER |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Shaelynn Katipa
v
Metcash DC
(U2025/56)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON | SYDNEY, 11 JULY 2025 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – application fee not paid or waived – application not made in accordance with the Act – application dismissed.
On 2 January 2025, Ms Shaelynn Katipa made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
Ms Katipa’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.
Commission staff attempted to contact Ms Katipa on 3 January, 9 January, 20 January, 23 January, 28 February, 4 March, 6 March and 20 June 2025 by telephone, SMS and email.
On 23 January Ms Katipa asked to proceed with her application and asked for a copy of the details that needs to be filled out in her waiver form. The information was provided on the same date but there was no response from the Applicant until 3 March 2025.
Ms Katipa said in an email on 3 March 2025 that she mistakenly thought the waiver had been provided and said that she was nonetheless able to pay the fee. On 4 March 2025 Ms Katipa called the Commission and advised she will make payment on 6 March 2025.
On 6 March 2025 the Commission telephoned Ms Katipa, the call was not successful and a voice message was left to advise Ms Katipa that she was required to make payment of the application fee by the morning of 7 March 2025 or her matter will be referred to Deputy President Easton to dismiss her application.
Ms Katipa has not responded.
Section 587 confers a discretion on the Commission to dismiss Ms Katipa’s application if it has not been made in accordance with the Act. Ms Katipa 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 make the following order:
A.The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Ms Shaelynn Katipa on 2 January 2025 is dismissed.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR789135>
- AGLC
- Shaelynn Katipa v Metcash DC [2025] FWC 1988
- Case
- [2025] FWC 1988
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before Deputy President Easton was whether the application could be dismissed under section 587(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act due to its non-compliance with the Act. The Deputy President considered whether Ms Katipa had been given sufficient opportunity to rectify the procedural error and whether there were any grounds to excuse her failure to comply with the requirements.
Deputy President Easton determined that Ms Katipa had ample opportunity to address the deficiency in her application and to provide reasons why it should not be dismissed. The Deputy President concluded that the application did not comply with the Act and exercised the discretion under section 587 to dismiss the application. The Deputy President noted that Ms Katipa’s repeated failure to respond to the Commission’s attempts to assist her in complying with the Act left no reasonable basis to excuse her non-compliance.
The Fair Work Commission ordered that the unfair dismissal application made by Ms Shaelynn Katipa on 2 January 2025 be dismissed. This decision underscores the importance of strictly adhering to the procedural requirements set out in the Fair Work Act when lodging an application with the Commission.
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.