Simone Michelle Dinsdale v ABM Contractors Pty Ltd Summary

[2025] FWC 2486

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.365—General protections

Simone Michelle Dinsdale
v

ABM Contractors Pty Ltd

(C2025/6227)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 22 AUGUST 2025

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal – application fee not paid or waived – application not made in accordance with the Act – application dismissed.

On 24 June 2025 Mr Simone Michelle Dinsdale made a general protections application to the Fair Work Commission under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Ms Dinsdale’s application was not made in accordance with the Act (per s.587(1)(a))

because the prescribed fee (per s.367) has not been paid or waived.

Section 587 confers a discretion on the Commission to dismiss Ms Dinsdale’s application if the application is not made in accordance with the Act. Ms Dinsdale has been given ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in the application and has also 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 Dinsdale’s general protections claim using the power

available under s.587(1)(a) and make the following order:

The application under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Ms Dinsdale on 24 June 2025 is dismissed

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Ms Simone Michelle Dinsdale lodged a general protections application against ABM Contractors Pty Ltd, seeking relief under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was made on 24 June 2025, and the dispute centred around issues of dismissal. However, the application was dismissed by Deputy President Easton on 22 August 2025 due to procedural deficiencies.

The legal issues the court needed to address were whether Ms Dinsdale's application complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act and, specifically, whether the prescribed application fee was paid or waived. Under section 587(1)(a) of the Act, the Commission has the discretion to dismiss an application if it is not made in accordance with the Act. This includes the necessity of either paying the prescribed fee or having it waived. The court found that Ms Dinsdale's application did not meet these criteria, as the requisite fee was neither paid nor waived.

Deputy President Easton dismissed Ms Dinsdale's application based on the failure to comply with the statutory requirements. The decision referenced Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302, where similar issues were addressed. Ms Dinsdale was given sufficient opportunity to rectify the application by paying the fee or having it waived, but she did not take the necessary steps. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion under section 587(1)(a) to dismiss the application.

The final order made by the Deputy President was that the general protections application made by Ms Dinsdale on 24 June 2025 be dismissed. This decision highlights the importance of adhering to procedural requirements when lodging applications under the Fair Work Act.

Simone Michelle Dinsdale v ABM Contractors Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established